create_geonode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It merely says 'Add a node' without disclosing side effects, whether a tree must already exist, whether the node is automatically connected, or what is returned (e.g., node ID). It lacks any behavioral context beyond the basic mutation.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. It includes a helpful list of examples without unnecessary fluff. Every word earns its place.

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?

Despite being a mutation tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, the description omits critical context: what 'object' and 'modifier' refer to, whether a node tree must already exist, and what the tool returns. The list of types is helpful but does not compensate for the missing operational prerequisites or parameter clarity.

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 lists common values for the 'type' parameter, which adds some meaning, but fails to explain 'object', 'modifier', 'location', or 'name'. The parameter semantics are largely left to the user's inference from schema field names.

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 node') and the specific resource ('geometry node tree'). It lists common node types, which helps distinguish this from related tools like create_shader_node or create_comp_node. The verb and resource are specific and non-tautological.

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 implies use when adding nodes to a geometry node tree, but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., existing geonodes modifier), or exclusions. It gives common types but no guidance on when to choose this over create_geonodes_modifier or connect_geonodes.

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