create_graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behavioral traits: validation of the graph, starting a live viewer, and not executing anything. It does not cover error behavior or viewer lifecycle, but the core side effects are surfaced.

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?

One sentence delivers purpose, validation behavior, viewer behavior, and the critical non-execution caveat. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description explains the tool's role but omits return behavior and post-creation steps. Given no output schema and 4 parameters, more guidance about what the agent should do after creating the graph would improve completeness.

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 coverage is only 50% (task and cwd have descriptions; nodes and edges do not). The description does not compensate by explaining how nodes/edges form the DAG or how they relate to execution. An agent would need extra reasoning to construct valid node and edge objects.

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 a DAG of subtasks') and clearly identifies the resource and scope. It also distinguishes itself from sibling execution tools by explicitly stating it does not execute anything.

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 implies when to use this tool (to define a graph before execution) and clarifies it does not run tasks, suggesting execution belongs to another sibling. However, it doesn't explicitly name an alternative like start_execution.

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