Apply Node Graph Description

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses creation/mutation behavior, the effect of scope and create_graph parameters, and the syntax. However, it does not detail side effects (e.g., overwriting existing connections) or failure modes.

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 a single dense paragraph that covers all essential points without redundancy. It could be improved by using bullet points or separate sections for clarity, but it is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 params, nested objects, two graph types, no output schema), the description is thorough. It covers syntax, scope differences, and type constraints. Missing return value info is acceptable since no output schema exists, but explicit mention would improve completeness.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds significant value: it explains the declarative dict syntax with $type/$id/-> keys, provides an example, clarifies the handle requirement vs scope, and defines node_space aliases and create_graph defaults.

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 that the tool builds or mutates a node graph using a declarative dict syntax, and distinguishes itself from sibling graph tools (set_graph_port, remove_graph_node) by its bulk declarative approach. It specifies supported graph types (material, scene-nodes) and provides an example.

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 explains when to use the tool (for building node graphs via declarative dicts) and provides guidance on choosing between material vs document scope. It also warns against using corenode IDs for scene-nodes. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like set_graph_port or remove_graph_node.

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