add_gn_group_output

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', which implies a mutation, but it does not mention side effects, whether the node group must exist, handling of duplicate names, idempotency, or error behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool that modifies state.

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 single sentence is concise and front-loaded with the core action. However, it is so sparse that it omits critical details, making it under-specified. While there is no fluff, the conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, so it only partially earns its place.

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 three required parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and only a minimal output schema hint, the description is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot correctly call this tool without knowing what values to provide for output_type, what qualifies as a node group, or what constitutes a valid output socket. The description fails to provide any of this context.

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—parameters are only named (output_name, output_type, node_group_name) with no types or descriptions. The description does not explain any of these parameters, their formats, expected values (e.g., valid output types), or how they relate to the operation. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 a specific action: 'Add a group-level output socket to a geometry node group.' This is a precise verb and resource, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'add_gn_group_input', though the name and context imply the distinction.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisite conditions. It simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent without context for selection among similar tools like 'add_gn_group_input' 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.