addNode

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

The description offers no behavioral details beyond the basic action. It does not disclose what happens on duplicate IDs, whether the operation is reversible, or any side effects. With no annotations to cover safety or behavioral traits, the description leaves all behavioral aspects uncertain.

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 clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and does not waste the agent's attention, scoring high on conciseness.

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 complexity of 8 parameters, nested metadata objects, and no output schema, the one-line description is inadequate. It does not explain the node lifecycle, relationship to projects, or expected outcomes, leaving the agent with too much uncertainty for a mutation tool.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all 8 parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already does the heavy lifting, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 'Add a new node to the knowledge graph' clearly identifies the action (add) and the resource (node in the knowledge graph). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like updateNode and removeNode, which imply modification and deletion respectively.

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 versus alternatives such as updateNode or linkNodes. There are no prerequisites or situational context given, such as whether the graph must already exist or how this relates to projects.

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