Build SOP geometry chain

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable behavioral disclosure: per-op failures become warnings (fail-forward), partial chains still return useful info, and wiring occurs under a configurable parent. It does not detail what the returned 'useful info' contains, but this is a minor gap given the annotation coverage.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a concise explanation of the wiring pattern, a note on failure behavior, a useful tip, and an explicit alternative. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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 schema covers all parameters and the description explains the wiring, failure handling, and best-practice tip, the tool is well contextualized. The only notable omission is a precise description of the return value (especially since there is no output schema), though 'returns useful info' partially addresses this.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the description does not need to explain each parameter in depth. It reinforces that `ops` contains type/name/params and mentions the parent default, but adds little beyond the schema. The special string-resolution behavior for params is already documented in the schema.

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 identifies the tool as a 'Declarative Layer-2 builder for an ordered SOP geometry chain' with a specific verb ('builds') and resource ('SOP geometry chain'). It explains the linear wiring model (op[i] output 0 → op[i+1] input 0) and explicitly contrasts with `connect_nodes` for multi-input fan-in, distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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 states when to use this tool (for ordered, linear SOP chains) and explicitly directs users to `connect_nodes` for multi-input scenarios, serving as a clear when-not/alternative. The tip about ending with `nullSOP` for stable handoff adds practical usage context.

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