create_geometry_nodes_modifier

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only says 'Add a Geometry Nodes modifier', which is a mutation, but it does not mention side effects, required object state, error conditions, or whether the operation is reversible. It provides minimal transparency beyond the basic action, leaving an agent without clues about failure modes or consequences.

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 front-loads the core action. Every word is purposeful, with no filler. It efficiently communicates the tool's function in minimal space.

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 only two parameters and an output schema exists, so complexity is low. The description covers the main use case but omits details like error handling, what happens if the object or node group does not exist, and whether a new node group is created when 'node_group_name' is null. It is adequate for a simple tool but could be more complete, especially since no annotations provide extra 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 no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must explain the parameters. The description clarifies that an existing node group can be used ('optionally using an existing node group'), which gives meaning to 'node_group_name'. However, it does not explain 'object_name' beyond its obvious meaning, nor does it detail the expected format of the node group name or what happens if it is omitted. The description is insufficient to fully understand parameter semantics.

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 a Geometry Nodes modifier to an object', specifying the exact resource type and target. It distinguishes this from the generic 'add_modifier' sibling by focusing on the specific modifier type. The sentence is unambiguous and leaves no doubt about the tool's purpose.

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 implies when to use it (for adding a Geometry Nodes modifier), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'add_modifier' or provide guidance on when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites or conditions that would make this the preferred choice. The usage context is implied, not explicitly stated.

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