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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers the most important trait: this is a non-mutating operation that produces a reviewable draft. It also discloses the return shape (name, role, systemPrompt, description, provider, model) and notes parity with the canvas quick-add. It stops short of describing validation limits or how the model pick resolves absent a graphId.

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 purpose and the non-creation guarantee are front-loaded in the first clause. The single sentence packs in a field list and an alternative tool, which is efficient but makes for a dense, somewhat crammed read.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description usefully compensates by enumerating the drafted fields. It omits only edge behavior like validation failures or how model selection falls back when graphId is absent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both graphId and description. The description adds no syntax or format guidance beyond what those schema descriptions provide, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Turn a plain-English brief into a structured node spec') and enumerates the resulting fields. It also sharply distinguishes itself from the create/update siblings by stressing 'WITHOUT creating anything'.

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?

It names the exact workflow and the follow-up alternatives: draft here, then materialize with create_graph or update_graph_nodes. The agent knows when to reach for this tool versus those siblings without guessing.

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