Tooltip STILL mentions "object"

Can you use the same tooltip as the object info node?

There is no "input object" in this context. I believe this should discuss the collection offset instead

I think this should return early at the top of the function instead, so that the rest of the function can assume it is not null.

This can just use collection->instance_offset here, no need for a temporary variable.

I'm also not sure why these need to be so different from the object info tooltips, aside from the obvious differences.
With the patch as is, there is no coherence between the descriptions on the two nodes.

I know this is usually not a deal breaker, but we're adding the node right now, this is the time to get it right.

Something like these mirrors the existing tooltips much more closely.
Output the geometry relative to the input object transforms and the collection offset
Bring the input object geometry into the modified object, maintaining the relative position between the objects in the scene

The issue is that I think those two are wrong.

Let me explain:
Output the geometry relative to the input object transforms and the collection offset

We are not outputting the geometry relative to the input object. We are outputting the geometry with the input object transform.
IE we are taking the raw geometry data and applying the modifier objects obmat on it.

So it is not relative, it is literately the input object transform.
So here simply replacing "relative to" with "with" so:
Output the geometry with the input object transforms and the collection offset

Is more correct and is more verbose I feel, relatively speaking ;)

Bring the input object geometry into the modified object, maintaining the relative position between the objects in the scene

"relative position" is wrong here.
If it were relative, it would move when the modifier object moves.
Otherwise it is not maintaining the relative distance between the two objects.
Now the position it has stays the same no matter how you move the modifier object.
This is more of maintaining an absolute position if nothing else.

The correct tip would be:
Apply the modifier object transform and then its inverse to make it keep its original transform.

However something along the lines of "Keep it as is" tip is easier to understand.

After writing all this down, I realized that I think we should rethink the "Original/Relative" labels again.
This is essentially Apply/Keep transform. I don't feel there is any original/relative about these to in this case.

However we could also see it as a selector for which objects transform we should use.
So we could have something like "Modifier/Input Object" so you select which transform to use.

This still talks about an "input object"...

Isn't this talking about the modifier object though?
The collection does not have any transform (expect for the offset parameter).

@Sebastian Parborg (zeddb) if you look at the object info node you can see that there is "input object" and "modified object":

Relative: "Bring the input object geometry, location, rotation and scale into the modified object, maintaining the relative position between the two objects in the scene".

That is for the relative tool tip and not for the "original" tool tip that were a discussing now.

Other tip reads:
"Output the geometry relative to the input object transform, and the location, rotation and scale relative to the world origin."

We don't use the info node input object transform in anyway, so we must be talking to about the modifier object here.
But I synced the tooltips as requested.

However if I'm wrong then I would like to have some suggestions on what to change it to.