create_node

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden. It does add a genuine behavioral nuance: for Merge nodes the connection goes to the B pipe rather than input 0. It does not cover side effects such as whether the node is created in the current script or what happens on naming collisions.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and states the core action, and the Args block is compact. The Args block duplicates schema descriptions verbatim, which is minor waste but not damaging.

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?

With no output schema, the description should say what comes back — e.g. the resulting node name, which matters because Nuke auto-names when 'name' is omitted and the caller may need that name for later wiring. That gap leaves the definition only partially complete for a creation 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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters in nearly identical wording. The description's Args block largely repeats that text, and the one useful addition (Merge B-pipe behavior) is also present in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 node') and adds a distinctive capability ('optionally wire it to an existing node') that an agent can act on. It is not sharply differentiated from siblings like connect_nodes or setup_merge, but the create-plus-wire framing is clear enough to distinguish it.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus connect_nodes (which wires existing nodes), setup_merge, or the many setup_* helpers. The 'optionally wire' phrase hints at a use case but never states the condition that selects this tool over the alternatives.

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