create_node

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that a node is created and its id returned; it says nothing about side effects on the active graph, permission or auth needs, what happens when all parameters are omitted (all seven are optional), or whether the new node is auto-connected.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and closed with the return value; no filler. It is arguably too terse for a seven-parameter tool, but nothing is wasted.

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 mutation tool with seven optional parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations or output schema, the definition leaves large gaps: positioning (x, y), target graph selection, and package scoping are undocumented. An agent could not confidently construct a call beyond the definition-vs-library case.

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% across seven parameters, so the description must compensate and it only partly does. It usefully clarifies the mutually exclusive definition-vs-library choice and the role of library_graph, but x, y, graph, and package remain completely undefined.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Crea un nodo") and states the return value ("Devuelve el id del nodo"), so the action is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as create_graph or create_output_node, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives real guidance on which parameter family to use: 'definition' for atomic nodes and 'library' for Adobe library filters, with 'library_graph' when a package holds several. That informs how to invoke the tool, but there is no guidance on when to choose this over create_output_node or how it relates to the currently open graph.

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