node_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention that the operator is auto-placed to the right of siblings, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not describe side effects, error behavior, or whether the new operator is returned, so it leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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 compact and instantly readable: one sentence of purpose, one behavioral note, then single-line parameter explanations. No filler or redundant restating of the schema.

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?

For a simple create operation, the essential param semantics and auto-placement are present. Yet with no annotations and no output schema, an agent would still be missing failure semantics and what the return value contains. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 fully. It adds concrete meaning to each parameter: parentPath is the full path of the parent COMP, type is the operator type string, and name is optional with TD-assigned fallback. These are non-redundant and directly usable.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create an operator in a parent COMP (e.g. 'noiseCHOP')'. This clearly distinguishes node_create from siblings like node_copy, node_find, and conn_create. The auto-placement note adds useful scope without 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 does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as node_copy or node_find, nor does it mention prerequisites like the parent COMP needing to exist. Usage is only implied by the purpose statement, with no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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