create_geonode

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 states the action (adds a node) but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether existing nodes are affected), required permissions, potential failures for unsupported types, or the return value. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 concise (one sentence plus a list of examples) and front-loaded with the core action. The list of types is somewhat long but adds value for the 'type' parameter. There is no fluff or redundancy, though the list could be trimmed or moved to an external reference without losing clarity.

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 tool with five parameters (three required) and no schema descriptions, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'object' and 'modifier' refer to, whether the node tree must already exist, or what the output is. The presence of an output schema is noted, but the description alone does not give an agent enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 provides no parameter descriptions (coverage 0%). The description lists valid values for 'type' (e.g., GeometryNodeMeshGrid), which is helpful, but it does not explain the roles of 'object', 'modifier', 'location', or 'name'. This leaves most parameters ambiguous, and the description only partially compensates for the missing schema documentation.

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 tool's purpose: 'Add a node to a geometry node tree.' This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect_geonodes (which connects nodes) and create_geonodes_modifier (which creates a modifier). The mention of common node types further clarifies the scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an existing geometry node tree or modifier), nor does it contrast with related operations like delete_geonode or connect_geonodes. The common types list hints at usage but does not explicitly state conditions or exclusions.

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