sd_create_instance_node

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

The description aligns with annotations: 'Create' implies a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and is consistent with non-idempotent and non-destructive status. It adds the behavioral context that the operation depends on a previously searched resource. However, it does not disclose other important behaviors like whether an active graph is required or how failures are handled, leaving moderate gaps.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and source. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or extraneous detail.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is too sparse for a complex creation tool with 3 required nested parameters. It omits prerequisites like needing an active graph, the significance of the position, and resource validation. For a tool with 0% schema coverage and multiple nested objects, more context is needed 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the 3 required parameters, but it only references 'resource' from the search result. It does not explain the 'graph' parameter (target graph reference) or 'position' (coordinates), nor the structure of GraphRef or LibraryResourceRef. The description adds minimal meaning beyond what the schema field names imply.

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 clearly states the action ('Create one instance') and the specific source ('a resource returned by sd_search_library'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sd_create_node or sd_create_graph, which create different entities. The phrasing is precise and non-tautological.

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 explicitly ties usage to a precondition: use a resource from sd_search_library. This provides clear context on when to use the tool and implies a workflow (search first, then create). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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