create_comp_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function and gives type examples. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., compositor enabled), side effects, return values, or what happens on invalid input. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action. The list of common types is informative and earns its place, adding practical value without unnecessary verbosity.

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 simple create tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. The output schema likely covers return values, and the parameter schema covers types. However, missing behavioral context (e.g., does it need compositing enabled? does it auto-connect?) leaves the description incomplete for an agent deciding when and how to invoke it safely.

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. It provides useful example values for the 'type' parameter, adding meaning beyond the bare string type. However, 'name' and 'location' are not described at all, leaving them under-specified. Partial compensation for the required parameter only.

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 action ('Add a compositor node') and the resource type. While it lists common compositor node types, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar create tools like create_shader_node or create_geonode, though the 'compositor' qualifier provides some distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like create_shader_node or create_geonode exist, but no exclusions or contextual usage hints are given. The list of common types implies some usage scenarios but does not state when to choose this tool.

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