diagram_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses important behavior: only passed arguments are touched, note="" clears a note, delete=True removes the step plus its edges and memory links, and unattached steps are allowed. It does not cover error conditions or whether deletion is reversible, but the mutation semantics are well described.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then efficiently layers in patch semantics, delete behavior, and the intentional relaxation of whole-graph rules. No wasted sentences.

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, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers purpose and key mutation behaviors but is incomplete for a 6-parameter tool. It omits meaning for most parameters and does not address error or return behavior.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies 'note' and 'delete' semantics but leaves 'key', 'uid', 'label', and 'shape' unexplained, leaving the agent without definitions for most parameters.

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 set (add, patch, remove) and resource (one step of a diagram), and distinguishes itself from diagram() by noting that whole-graph rules are relaxed here while diagram() enforces them. The edge mention also implicitly separates it from diagram_edge.

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?

Explains that whole-graph rules are intentionally relaxed so a flow can be built across multiple calls, and contrasts with diagram() which enforces them. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus diagram_edge or when not to use this tool.

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