blender_geonodes

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

Annotations are all false, so no safety profile is provided. The description lists mutating operations (e.g., assign_modifier, add_node) but does not disclose side effects such as modifying the Blender scene, requiring an open project, or potential failure modes. The return format is mentioned but redundant given the output schema.

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 well-structured with a bullet list of operations, a return format note, and an example. It is concise and front-loaded, though the return format section is redundant since an output schema exists.

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?

The tool is complex with 15 parameters and 6 distinct operations, but the description only lists operations without explaining operation sequences (e.g., create_group before add_node), parameter dependencies, or preconditions. The example covers only one operation, leaving significant operational gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 15 parameters, the description must compensate, but it only partially does. The operation names hint at relevant parameters (e.g., connect_nodes implies from_node/to_node) and the example uses group_name, but there is no explicit mapping of parameters to operations or clarification of required vs. optional fields.

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 defines the tool as 'Geometry Nodes graph operations (procedural modeling)' and lists six specific operations (create_group, add_node, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like blender_modifiers or blender_shaders. The enumerated operations make the purpose concrete and actionable.

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 clear domain context ('Geometry Nodes graph operations') and an example call, which implies usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when to choose this tool over alternatives or state any exclusions. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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