memory_graph_add

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose side effects, requirements, or what happens on duplicate nodes. Only the basic action and parameters are listed.

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 concise, using a clear Args structure. It front-loads the purpose and then lists parameters efficiently with minimal 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?

Adequate for a simple add operation with 5 parameters, but lacks usage guidance, return info, and behavioral details. No output schema or annotations, so more context would improve 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?

With 0% schema coverage, description adds value by explaining parameters: layer as 'user' or 'agent', node_type with examples (fact, decision, etc.), and tags. This goes beyond the schema's bare titles.

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 'Add a node to the epistemic graph' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like memory_graph_nodes or memory_graph_edges, which list or query nodes.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_episode_save or memory_remember. The description only states the action without context or exclusions.

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