Creates a Nuke transform node to reposition, warp, or reformat a given input node using Transform, CornerPin2D, Reformat, or Tracker4 operations.
Create a transform node.
Args: input_node: node to transform. operation: Transform, CornerPin2D, Reformat, or Tracker4.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| operation | No | Transform, CornerPin2D, Reformat, or Tracker4. | Transform |
| input_node | Yes | node to transform. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The only annotation is destructiveHint=false, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond it: nothing about where the node is placed, whether it is connected, what the return value is, or what the operation default does. For a creation tool with minimal annotation coverage, the description carries more burden than it meets.
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?
Purpose is front-loaded in a single short sentence and the parameter list is compact. It is efficiently sized, though the Args block duplicates schema content and earns little of its space.
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?
Adequate minimum for a 2-parameter creation tool with no output schema: the agent knows what is created and what inputs are needed. It omits what the resulting node references or how placement/connection works, which an agent likely needs to chain this with connect_nodes or set_node_position.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 applies. The description's Args block merely restates the schema text ('node to transform', the four operation values) with no additional semantics such as ordering, exclusivity, or default behavior beyond what the schema already declares.
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 transform node'), which is clear and actionable. However, it does not differentiate itself from close siblings like create_node, setup_merge, setup_denoise, or setup_precomp, all of which also create nodes.
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 setup_transform versus create_node or the other setup_* siblings. The agent is left to infer that this is the specialized path for the four node types listed, but nothing states that explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.