add_geometry_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 disclosing behavior. It only says 'add a node,' which implies a mutation but provides no detail on side effects (e.g., whether the group must exist, what happens on invalid node_type, whether existing nodes are affected). The description adds no behavioral information beyond the obvious intent.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. However, it is too sparse—it does not leverage its brevity to convey additional necessary constraints or context. It is appropriately sized for the action but insufficient in content, making it only average.

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?

Given a 4-parameter tool with no schema descriptions and an output schema (not visible), the description is severely incomplete. It omits crucial information such as available node types, default behaviors, requirements for the node group, and error conditions. An agent would not be able to reliably invoke this tool without consulting other sources or 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 input schema has 0% description coverage and no parameter descriptions, and the tool description says nothing about the parameters (node_group_name, node_type, name, location). The agent is left without any explanation of what these parameters mean, what valid node types exist, or how to format location. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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: adding a node of a given type to a geometry node group. This distinguishes it from compositor, shader, and constraint node tools by specifying the context (geometry node group). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar 'add' tools like add_gn_group_input or add_compositor_node, so it lacks explicit sibling discrimination.

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 the many other node-adding or geometry-node tools (e.g., connect_gn_nodes, set_gn_node_input, add_gn_group_input). The tool name implies it is for adding a node to a geometry node group, but no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. An agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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