sd_create_node

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

With all annotations false, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: 'one verified atomic node' implies validation, and 'without auto-connecting it' explicitly states a key behavior. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., overwriting an existing node at that position), any permissions/requirements, or the nature of verification. The description adds some value beyond annotations but leaves significant behavioral 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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the main action ('Create one verified atomic node') followed by key constraints. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information.

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 the tool's complexity (3 parameters, graph reference, position type) and the presence of an output schema, the description is somewhat under-specified. It lacks usage guidance, clear parameter explanations, and caveats about verification. For a create operation in a rich domain with many sibling tools, a one-sentence description is minimally viable 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. It loosely hints at 'position' (explicit position) and 'definition' (atomic node), but does not clarify the format of position (array of two numbers), the meaning of definition_id (which definition, how referenced), or what 'graph' refers to. The description adds minimal semantic value over the raw schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('create') with a clear resource ('verified atomic node') and explicit scope ('at an explicit position without auto-connecting it'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sd_create_instance_node (which creates instance nodes) and sd_connect_nodes (which handles connections) by highlighting the atomic nature and no auto-connection.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention that sd_create_instance_node should be used for instance nodes, nor does it explain prerequisites like the graph needing to exist or whether 'verified' implies a validation step. The only implied usage is for creating atomic nodes, but no explicit context or exclusions are given.

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