attach

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the operation is additive, non-destructive ('without moving or copying it — same id, edges, history'), idempotent, and local-only. It omits return/confirmation details and any permission requirements, but the safety and side-effect profile is unusually complete.

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 core action and the additive/no-copy guarantee are front-loaded, and the sibling routing comes last. It is a dense single paragraph rather than a compact sentence, but every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone; it covers side effects, idempotency, scope (local only), and the alternative. Confirmation/return behavior is unstated, a minor gap for a mutation tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both 'node' and 'to'. The description reinforces the additive semantics and cross-initiative resolution, but adds little beyond what the parameter descriptions already state — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource (add a node to another initiative) with the key qualifier 'additive multi-membership' and explicitly contrasts with the sibling merge_initiative. An agent can distinguish it from merge_initiative and other initiative tools without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit use case (repair fragmentation, node captured under the wrong or stale initiative) and routes to the alternative ('For a whole initiative rather than a few nodes, merge_initiative is the one-step version'). When-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are both present.

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