Add Node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the kind is checked against a live registry, that omitted config applies the kind's schema defaults, that parent_id places the node inside a lane, and that the created node is returned. This exceeds a bare mutation description and covers the relevant runtime behavior.

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?

Three succinct, well-ordered sentences; the core action leads, followed by the registry prerequisite and then the return behavior. No filler words, each sentence provides distinct value.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains special cases (defaults, lane placement), prerequisites (registry check), and the return value. Residual gaps like error handling or uniqueness of node_id are minor for a typical add-node operation.

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?

Although the schema already documents all parameters (100% coverage), the description adds meaning beyond the schema: kind is resolved against the live registry, config omission triggers defaults, and parent_id controls lane placement. This supplements rather than merely repeats the 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 states a specific verb and resource ('add a node of a given kind to a workflow') and clarifies that the kind is validated. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as remove_node, configure_node, and connect_nodes, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 clear operational context: call list_node_kinds first to check the live registry, omit config to apply defaults, and use parent_id for lane placement. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternative tools, but the prerequisite and placement guidance make the appropriate use case clear.

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