create_cop_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain the Copernicus vs COP2 distinction and notes that Copernicus is preferred over deprecated COP2. However, it doesn't disclose what happens on failure, whether the node is created with default parameters, or whether the operation is destructive to existing nodes. The description adds some context but not comprehensive behavioral detail.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, a usage note, and an Args section. It's moderately sized but every sentence earns its place. The front-loaded purpose statement and the practical pre-call instruction are valuable. The list of example node types is somewhat long but serves a real purpose in guiding tool selection.

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 creation tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, how to determine the correct cop_type, and the meaning of each parameter. It doesn't explain return values or error behavior, but given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete.

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. The description lists the three parameters (parent_path, cop_type, name) in an Args section, but only provides minimal context: parent_path is 'Path to the parent COP network', cop_type is 'COP node type to create', and name is 'Override node name'. This adds some meaning beyond the schema's bare titles, but doesn't explain formats, defaults, or constraints beyond what the schema already shows.

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 tool's purpose: 'Create a COP node in the specified network.' It identifies the resource (COP node), the action (create), and the target context (specified network). It also distinguishes between Copernicus (Houdini 20+) and legacy COP2 contexts, which helps differentiate it from sibling tools like create_chop_node, create_lop_node, and create_node.

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 explicit usage guidance: it instructs the agent to call list_node_types(context='Cop', filter='<keyword>') before using this tool, and explains when to use Cop vs Cop2. It also lists many dedicated COP node types that may cover the operation without needing a VEX COP or Python, which helps the agent decide when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives.

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