add_gn_group_input

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

With no annotations, the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'add' without detailing side effects, requirements (e.g., node group must exist), or whether the operation is reversible. It doesn't disclose anything about the mutation beyond the fact that it adds a socket.

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, efficient sentence with no redundancy. It gets straight to the point, though it sacrifices informational content for brevity.

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 has four parameters and no annotations, yet the description provides no context about prerequisites, effects, or what the output represents. Even though an output schema exists, the description leaves critical gaps such as whether the node group must be created first, how default_value behaves, or any constraints on input_type.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not mention any of the four parameters (input_name, input_type, default_value, node_group_name). It provides no meaning for what a 'group-level input socket' entails in terms of these parameters, leaving the agent without clues about how to fill them correctly.

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), the resource (group-level input socket), and the target (geometry node group). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_gn_group_output, which adds output sockets.

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 about when to use this tool or when to prefer alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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