metasound_add_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states it adds a node, which is a mutation, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., graph modification, compilation requirements, or failure modes). It provides a KB reference for further reading, which adds some context, but lacks detail on behavior like whether the graph must be saved or compiled.

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 and to the point, with a clear first sentence stating the action and a compact parameter list. It includes a KB reference and an example, which is helpful, but the example could be more detailed. The structure is front-loaded with the 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?

The tool is moderately complex with 6 parameters, and there is no output schema, so the description should explain return values and error conditions. It does not mention what happens after node addition (e.g., compilation, save), nor does it provide guidance on choosing a valid class_name. The KB reference partially compensates, but the description alone is insufficient for an agent to confidently use it without external lookup.

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. It lists required parameters (metasound, class_name) and names optional ones (class_namespace, class_variant, major_version, node_position) but provides no additional detail beyond what the schema already shows. The description does not clarify what values are valid (e.g., how class_namespace is used, what major_version affects).

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 ('Add a native MetaSound node') and the primary resource ('MetaSound Source/Patch asset path'), and it specifies the key parameter (class_name). It distinguishes from sibling tools like metasound_connect_pins and metasound_create_source, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 implies when to use this tool (adding nodes to a MetaSound graph) and provides an example, but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Given the broad sibling set, more explicit routing would be better.

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