Build SOP geometry chain

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive. Description adds fail-forward behavior (partial chain returns info) and wiring semantics. Minor gap: doesn't specify if existing nodes are overwritten, but openWorldHint provides context.

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?

Compact single paragraph with no wasted words. Each sentence serves a purpose: purpose, behavior, tip, sibling differentiation.

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?

Covers core chain-building, error handling, best practice (nullSOP), and alternative for multi-input. No output schema but description mentions useful info from partial chain. Complete for agent use.

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?

Description adds significant meaning beyond 100% schema coverage: explains wiring logic, fail-forward on per-op failures, and param string values resolving to op paths. This compensates the high schema coverage.

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 clearly states 'Declarative Layer-2 builder for an ordered SOP geometry chain' with specific verb 'build' and resource 'SOP geometry chain'. It distinguishes from siblings like `connect_nodes` and `build_chop_chain`.

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?

Explicitly advises using `connect_nodes` for multi-input fan-in and recommends ending with `nullSOP` for handoffs. Provides clear context for when to use this tool vs alternatives.

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