Apply Node Graph Description

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses mutation, on-demand graph creation, scene-node type restrictions, and unsupported operations for scene-nodes. It stops short of clarifying whether an existing graph is merged or replaced and what the tool returns on success or failure.

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 dense but front-loaded with the core operation and syntax, and nearly every clause adds value. The inline JSON example and long caveat-laden sentence make it slightly harder to scan than necessary, but it is appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool.

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?

For a complex tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers input syntax, supported graph types, scope, node_space behavior, and the default create_graph behavior. The main gaps are the lack of any statement about return values/error behavior and the merge-vs-replace semantics on an existing graph.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaning well beyond the schema by explaining the special keys in the `description` parameter ($type, $id, '->' wiring), giving a nested example, and clarifying scope/node_space defaults and scene-node asset-id sourcing. This is genuinely useful for an agent constructing a valid call.

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 states a precise operation—building or mutating a node graph via maxon.GraphDescription dict syntax—and gives concrete examples of node creation, stable ids, port wiring, and port values. It also names the graph families it applies to (standard/redshift materials and the scene-nodes document graph), which helps distinguish it from Xpresso-related sibling tools.

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?

It provides strong contextual guidance: material graphs vs document scope, where to source scene-node asset ids, and the material-only restriction on queries/labels. However, it never explicitly names a sibling tool as the alternative for other graph types (e.g. apply_xpresso_graph), so some routing decisions are left to inference.

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