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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that the node keeps its id/type/label/attributes, becomes a group, gains one new detail per edge, and that edges retain id and label while re-targeting to details. It does not state error behavior when the type lacks a detailing, nor explicitly that the source document is left untouched.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then eligibility, then the structural consequences, then the follow-up. Four dense sentences with little waste, though the middle sentence packs several facts into one long clause chain.

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 mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers eligibility, the transformation's effect on node and edges, the return value ('the updated VGL document'), and the recommended next step. Only failure modes and the exact return shape are unaddressed, which is minor here.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both `vgl` and `node` are already documented in the schema; the description only implicitly adds that `node` must be a decomposable type. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a precise verb and resource: 'Decompose a node into a detailed node and return the updated VGL document.' It goes beyond the name by naming the related sibling `describe_notation` as the way to discover eligible node types, so an agent knows this is a structural transform distinct from the create_* siblings.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('Only a node whose type has a detailing can be decomposed') and routes the agent to `describe_notation` to check eligibility, plus a follow-up step ('Rename and retype the new details afterwards'). It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when-not to decompose at all.

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