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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Mark as completed') which implies a mutation, but doesn't describe side effects (e.g., whether this affects parent/child nodes, triggers notifications, or changes visibility), permissions required, error conditions, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and appropriate for its simplicity.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (a mutation with one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, it lacks crucial behavioral details like side effects or error handling, making it incomplete for safe operation.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it adds no parameter information beyond what's implied by the tool name. It doesn't explain what 'node_id' represents, its format, or how to obtain it. However, with only one parameter and an output schema present, the baseline is 3 as the schema provides structure, but the description fails to add meaningful semantic context.

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 action ('Mark as completed') and resource ('a WorkFlowy node'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'workflowy_uncomplete_node' which would be the inverse operation, nor does it specify what 'completed' means in the WorkFlowy context (e.g., visual strikethrough, status change).

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the node must exist), when not to use it (e.g., on already completed nodes), or how it relates to siblings like 'workflowy_update_node' (which might also modify completion status). The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states 'Create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't address permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., returns the created node). For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic creation operation and front-loads the essential action and resource. Every word earns its place in conveying the core purpose.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, creation operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally complete. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, it leaves too much undefined about behavior and parameters. It meets the bare minimum but has clear gaps in guidance and transparency.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but provides no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'name', 'parent_id', 'note', 'layout_mode', 'position', or '_completed' mean or how they affect node creation. With 6 parameters (1 required) and no schema descriptions, this creates substantial ambiguity for proper tool invocation.

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 action ('Create') and resource ('new node in WorkFlowy'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_node' or 'delete_node' by specifying creation rather than modification or removal. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'workflowy_list_nodes' or 'workflowy_get_node' which are read operations.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a parent_id for nested nodes), when to choose this over 'workflowy_update_node' for modifications, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'workflowy_complete_node' for task management. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes a node and its children, implying a destructive mutation, but lacks details on permissions needed, irreversibility, error conditions, or rate limits, leaving significant gaps for a deletion 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Delete') and resource, with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.

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 the tool's destructive nature and lack of annotations, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It specifies what the tool does but omits critical behavioral context (e.g., permanence, errors). The presence of an output schema helps, but more guidance is needed for safe use.

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?

The description doesn't add specific details about the 'node_id' parameter beyond what the schema implies (a string identifier). However, with only one parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description's clarity about the tool's purpose provides adequate context, compensating for the minimal parameter documentation.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a WorkFlowy node and all its children'), distinguishing it from siblings like workflowy_update_node or workflowy_get_node by focusing on permanent removal rather than modification or retrieval.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., node must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete root nodes), or compare to siblings like workflowy_uncomplete_node for different deletion scenarios.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions (e.g., invalid node IDs), or what happens if the node doesn't exist. The description lacks essential context for safe and effective use.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential purpose.

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 the tool's low complexity (single parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete parameter semantics, it leaves gaps in behavioral and usage context that could hinder effective tool selection.

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?

The description mentions the parameter ('by ID'), but with 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already indicates (a required string 'node_id'). It doesn't explain the ID format, source, or constraints, leaving significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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 verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('a specific WorkFlowy node by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'workflowy_list_nodes' (which retrieves multiple nodes) or 'workflowy_update_node' (which modifies rather than fetches).

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid node ID), contrast it with 'workflowy_list_nodes' for bulk retrieval, or indicate scenarios where fetching a single node is preferred over listing all nodes.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that listing can be done with or without a parent_id, but fails to describe key behavioral traits: whether it returns all nodes or is paginated, what the output format is (though output schema exists), or any rate limits or permissions required. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List WorkFlowy nodes') and adds necessary clarification ('omit parent_id for root'). There is zero waste, and every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete parameter guidance, it lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, and sibling differentiation. It meets basic needs but has clear gaps in completeness.

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?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that omitting parent_id lists root nodes, which clarifies the parameter's role. However, it doesn't specify the format or constraints of parent_id (e.g., string type, valid IDs), leaving some ambiguity. Baseline is 3 as it partially compensates for low schema coverage.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'WorkFlowy nodes', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on listing rather than creating, updating, deleting, or managing completion states. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'workflowy_get_node' which might retrieve a single node, leaving slight ambiguity.

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?

The description provides minimal guidance: it mentions omitting parent_id for root nodes, which implies usage for listing root or child nodes. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use advice, such as when to choose this over 'workflowy_get_node' for single nodes or how it relates to other list-like operations. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('Mark as not completed') which implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires authentication, what happens if the node is already uncompleted, error conditions, or side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, clear sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential action.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (a mutation operation with one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which likely covers return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete parameter documentation, it leaves gaps in understanding behavioral aspects and parameter usage. It meets the minimum viable threshold but lacks depth for safe and effective use.

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?

The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter (node_id), the description doesn't explain what node_id represents, its format, or how to obtain it. However, since there's only one parameter and the tool name implies its purpose, the baseline is 3, but it doesn't compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 action ('Mark as not completed') and the resource ('a WorkFlowy node'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling 'workflowy_complete_node' by specifying the opposite operation. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the tool name 'uncomplete' in the description, which would make it perfect.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the node must exist and be currently completed), nor does it differentiate from similar tools like 'workflowy_update_node' which might also handle completion status. There's no explicit when/when-not usage context.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens when only some fields are provided (partial updates), whether changes are reversible, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 extremely concise at just 5 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource. While it's arguably too brief given the tool's complexity, it achieves maximum efficiency within its limited scope.

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 the tool has 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and involves mutation operations, the description is severely incomplete. While an output schema exists (which helps with return values), the description doesn't address key contextual aspects like authentication requirements, error conditions, partial update behavior, or relationships with sibling tools. For a node update operation in a hierarchy system, this leaves too many unknowns.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description mentions no parameters at all, failing to compensate for this complete lack of schema documentation. Users must guess what 'node_id', 'name', 'note', 'layout_mode', and '_completed' mean based solely on their names, which is insufficient for proper tool invocation.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing WorkFlowy node'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'create_node' and 'delete_node' by specifying it's for existing nodes. However, it doesn't specify what aspects can be updated (name, note, layout_mode, completion status), which prevents a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'update_node' over 'complete_node' or 'uncomplete_node' for completion status changes, or how it relates to 'get_node' for retrieving node data before updating. There's no context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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