geometry_nodes.add_node

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation. The description adds only generic 'Risk: standard; maturity: L3' and a session-policy note, but does not disclose what side effects adding a node has on the scene, whether a geometry node group must already exist, or how the node is integrated. It provides minimal value beyond the annotations.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It contains only a command identifier and generic risk/maturity labels, and every useful explanatory sentence is missing.

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?

For a mutating tool with no readOnly/idempotent hints and only 38% schema coverage, the description should explain what the node addition does, what parameters like nodeType and groupName mean, and how this relates to the geometry node workflow. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the complete absence of functional 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?

Schema description coverage is only 38%, and the meaningful parameters (groupName, name, nodeType, label, _expectedSceneRevision) have no descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not compensate by explaining any of these parameters, their formats, or their roles, leaving the agent without essential semantics for calling the tool.

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 identifies the command name and harness context but never states what the tool actually does beyond 'add_node'. It does not say it adds a node to a Blender geometry node group, making it essentially a restatement of the name/title with no functional explanation.

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 about when to use this tool versus the many related geometry node tools such as blender_geometry_nodes_create_group, blender_geometry_nodes_connect, or blender_geometry_nodes_set_node_input. The only extra sentence concerns risk and session policy, which does not help an agent select this tool over alternatives.

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