Circuitry MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it removes an existing edge and creates new edges through inserted nodes, and specifies the structural impact (e.g., 'Source → NewNode → Target'). However, it lacks details on error handling, permissions, or side effects.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by specific usage instructions in two clear sentences. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential operational guidance without redundancy.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basic operation and parameters well but lacks information on return values, error conditions, or prerequisites. It is adequate for a tool with good schema coverage but incomplete for full agent understanding.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the semantic difference between 'node' (single insertion) and 'nodes' (chain insertion) with concrete examples, enhancing understanding beyond the schema's technical descriptions.

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 the specific action ('Insert node(s) between two connected nodes') and the resource ('existing edge'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'nodes.add' or 'edges.connect' by focusing on insertion between existing nodes with edge reconfiguration.

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 explicitly provides when-to-use guidance by specifying two distinct usage patterns (single insertion vs. chain insertion) and includes an alternative rule ('use OR nodes, not both'), though it does not mention when to choose this tool over other node-creation or edge-modification tools.

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