lira_add_nodes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose mutation semantics (append after the last node), the geometry unit convention, and that node numbers are returned, but says nothing about which model is affected, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens on invalid coordinates.

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?

A single tight sentence with the core action and return value front-loaded. No filler or 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?

The output schema covers the return value, so the description needn't explain results in detail. But for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and an undocumented 'model' parameter, the definition is only minimally sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that coordinates are XYZ triples in LIRA's geometry unit, which adds real meaning beyond the untyped 'array of array of number' schema. However, the 'model' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving a significant gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add nodes') with scope ('after the last node') and return information ('returns their numbers'). It is distinguishable from lira_add_elements by resource name alone, though the description never explicitly contrasts the two.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus siblings like lira_add_elements or lira_import_text_model, and no prerequisites or preconditions. Only implied usage via 'after the last node', which is ordering behavior, not guidance.

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