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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false). The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: nodes are auto-placed, a versioned snapshot labeled 'Edited by AI agent (exact)' is saved, and no AI call is made. This is rich side-effect disclosure, though it does not spell out error/permission conditions.

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?

Five short sentences, purpose front-loaded, then types, formatting, placement behavior, and return shape in order of relevance. No filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the return payload (applied count, rejected list with reasons, node/edge counts, link). Combined with the 100% schema coverage, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though permission or failure conditions are not addressed.

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 flow_id and every item field. The description restates the node types and the warning/error/none status meaning, adding only the 'auto-placed' placement note beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb (Add) plus resource (nodes) and scopes it to a 'Wavelength flow'. Combined with the enumerated node types and 'New nodes are auto-placed', an agent can immediately distinguish this from update_nodes, remove_nodes, and add_edges.

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?

Implies usage through behavioral cues like 'No AI call' and auto-placement, which steer it away from the AI-driven siblings (ask_flow, edit_flow). However, it never explicitly says when to reach for add_nodes versus update_nodes or remove_nodes, leaving the choice to inference.

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