build_geometry_node_tree

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

The description mentions the all-at-once nature but does not disclose side effects such as whether existing nodes are cleared, how the clear parameter works, or whether the operation replaces or appends. There are no annotations to provide this information.

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 very brief and to the point, but it lacks any structure such as bullet points or parameter explanations. It is concise but not particularly well-organized for a tool with four 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?

The tool is complex (building a geometry node tree), yet the description provides almost no context about input formats, expected behavior, return values, or error conditions. Without annotations or an output schema, an agent would be left guessing.

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 lists parameters with no descriptions, and the description merely says 'format same as build_node_tree', which does not clarify the roles of clear, links, nodes, or node_group. The description adds no meaning beyond the types.

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 it builds a geometry node tree in one shot and references the format of build_node_tree, which distinguishes it from incremental node editing tools. The verb 'build' and resource 'geometry node tree' are specific.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'in one go' implies a batch operation, but it does not explain when this is preferable to using build_node_tree or add_geometry_node.

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