pob_node_tooltip

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a vague hint that computed changes are returned, without saying what triggers that computation or what the response contains — and there is no output schema to fill the gap.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no padding beyond the unhelpful word 'Оригинальный'. Brevity here comes at the cost of substance rather than from efficiency.

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 two-parameter inspection tool with no output schema, the description should identify the node id parameter and the meaning of the compare flag. Neither is covered, and the Russian-only wording diverges from the English naming used across sibling tools, adding friction.

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 carries the full burden, yet it never explains that 'id' is the tree node identifier or what the boolean 'compare' toggles. The phrase 'расчётные изменения' loosely gestures at 'compare' but leaves the semantics ambiguous.

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 names a resource (a passive-tree node tooltip) and lists what it exposes: properties, path, and calculated changes. However, 'Оригинальный AddNodeTooltip' is an internal API reference rather than a user-facing verb, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like pob_tree_action or pob_tree_options, which also operate on tree 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative. An agent must infer from the tool name alone that this is the per-node inspection call versus the tree mutation calls.

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