blender_geonode_array_grid

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the key side effect that a Geometry Nodes modifier is applied to object_name, which is meaningful, but it does not clarify whether an existing modifier is replaced, whether other scene state changes, or what the tool returns.

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 two short sentences with no filler and front-loads the core purpose and available arrangement types. The side-effect note about object_name is concise and earns its place.

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?

The definition is adequate for a straightforward tool: the purpose is clear and the schema covers all parameters. However, with no annotations and no output schema, plus a large sibling set, the description would benefit from explicit usage guidance and a note about return values or behavior when the modifier already exists.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters with descriptions and defaults. The description adds little beyond confirming the modifier target, which matches object_name; it does not introduce additional parameter semantics or usage detail beyond the schema.

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 a specific operation: instancing an object in LINEAR, GRID_2D, RADIAL, or HEXAGONAL arrangements via Geometry Nodes. It distinguishes itself from siblings like blender_array_along_curve or blender_geonode_scatter_instances by naming the exact pattern modes and confirming the modifier is applied to object_name.

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 implies usage for parametric array patterns, and the listed arrangement modes give some context for when this tool fits. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as blender_array_along_curve, blender_geonode_scatter_instances, or blender_collection_instance, nor does it state when not to use it.

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