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 full behavioral burden. It discloses useful ecosystem context (COP2 deprecated as of Houdini 20.5, Copernicus preferred) but says nothing about failure modes, whether the parent network must exist, permissions, or what is returned on success.

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 core action and prerequisite, which is good, but the long enumeration of ~17 node types is verbose relative to its routing value and dominates the middle of the description.

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-param creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, workflow prerequisite, context selection, and all parameters. It is largely sufficient, with only return/failure behavior left unaddressed.

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 does: it documents all three params inline (parent_path as the parent COP network path, cop_type as the node type, name as an override). It adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though without format examples for parent_path.

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+resource ("Create a COP node") with scope ("in the specified network"), distinguishing it from generic create_node and the sibling create_lop_node/create_chop_node. An agent can tell what the tool produces without opening the schema.

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 prerequisite (call list_node_types with context='Cop' or 'Cop2' first) and steering advice (prefer Copernicus over deprecated COP2). It doesn't explicitly compare against the generic create_node/create_node-type siblings, so it stops just short of full alternative routing.

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