create_chop_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely does not. It never says what the call returns (presumably a node path), what happens if chop_type is invalid or the name collides, whether the node cooks on creation, or whether it requires an active/connected Houdini session. Only the node-type verification hint adds behavioral value.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then the verification prerequisite, then args. The node-type enumeration is long but earns its place by steering the agent away from hand-rolled networks. No filler sentences.

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 3-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and a key prerequisite but omits return value, failure modes, and path format conventions. Adequate to invoke, incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only minimally does: 'Parent network path', 'CHOP node type to create', and 'Node name override' mostly restate the parameter names. The one genuinely useful detail is that name is an override (optional, defaults to the type's default name), but format expectations (e.g. absolute vs relative path) are absent.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new CHOP node') and scopes it to the CHOP context, which distinguishes it from the generic create_node sibling. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with create_node or create_cop_node/create_lop_node, so an agent must infer that the CHOP-specific variant is the right choice.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition ('call list_node_types(context="Chop", filter=...) to verify the correct node type') and warns that dedicated CHOPs like noise, wave, spring, jiggle, lag, or limit may already cover the need. That is real when-to-use guidance, though it stops short of naming the alternative tool to call instead of creating a node.

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