geometry_nodes.add_node

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Add a node') without mentioning side effects (e.g., modifier updates, error behavior if the modifier doesn't exist), whether it requires the object to have a Geometry Nodes modifier, or any other behavioral traits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but severely under-specified for a tool with four parameters and no schema descriptions. It lacks necessary detail about parameters and usage, making it inadequate despite its brevity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain how to specify the node type, what objects or modifiers are valid, what happens on success/failure, or any return value. The schema has 0% coverage, and the description fails to compensate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (name, type, object, modifier). The parameter titles in the schema provide some hint, but the description adds no value beyond that. For example, it does not clarify what valid values for 'type' are or how 'modifier' defaults to the first Geometry Nodes modifier.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Add a node to a Geometry Nodes modifier group' clearly states the verb (add) and resource (node to modifier group). It distinguishes from sibling tools like geometry_nodes.link (which links nodes) and geometry_nodes.create_modifier (which creates the modifier itself). However, it does not elaborate on what 'add' entails (e.g., position, type specification).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as geometry_nodes.link or modifiers.add. There is no mention of prerequisites, troubleshooting, or context where this tool is appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.