create_comp_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Add a compositor node' with no mention of side effects, requirements, or what happens if the compositor tree doesn't exist. It doesn't even state that the node will be added to the current scene's compositor tree or how it interacts with other compositor operations. This is a significant lack of transparency for a mutating tool.

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 sentence with a list of types. It is concise and front-loaded with the primary action. Every word contributes to the core purpose, though it could be slightly more structured with separate notes on parameters.

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 creation tool with no annotations, an output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention that the tool operates within a compositor node tree, that the tree must be enabled or accessed via get_compositor_tree, or that the node will be placed but not connected. The list of common types helps, but missing parameter semantics and workflow context leave the agent without enough information to call it reliably.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides a list of common types for the 'type' parameter, which gives some semantic guidance, but it does not explain that 'type' is required or describe the 'name' and 'location' parameters at all. The agent is left to guess what values are valid for those fields, and the description offers no syntax or examples beyond the type list.

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 the action: 'Add a compositor node.' It identifies the resource type (compositor node) and lists common types, which helps distinguish it from shader or geometry node creation tools. However, it does not explicitly connect it to the compositor node tree or mention the broader workflow, so it's clear but not fully differentiated from all siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_shader_node or create_geonode. It also doesn't mention prerequisites such as needing an active compositor tree or whether the node will be automatically connected. The only hint is the word 'compositor' in the description, which is implicit rather than explicit.

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