graph_graph_add_node

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It does not state whether adding an existing node replaces or errors, whether it triggers side effects, or safety considerations. Only implies a mutation operation.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with context tag '[graph]'. It is efficient but could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness to cover essential details.

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?

Given a graph operation with 3 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema details in description, the tool lacks completeness. No mention of error conditions, return value interpretation, or dependency on graph existence.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema). Description adds only that 'meta' is an optional dict. The 'name' and 'node' parameters are unexplained, though their titles suggest purpose; still, meaning is minimally added.

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 states it adds a node to a graph with optional metadata. The '[graph]' prefix and the verb 'Add' distinguish it from sibling tools like graph_graph_add_edge or graph_graph_create, but it could explicitly mention that the 'name' parameter identifies the graph.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., graph_graph_create for a new graph, graph_graph_remove_node for removal). No mention of prerequisites like the graph must exist.

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