add_graph_fragment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: a hard 256-node cap and the fact that the whole batch collapses into a single undo step, which is exactly the kind of context an agent needs for a mutation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and cap, then the field requirements. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety. However, the description never says which graph/material the fragment is added to, making `material_id` semantically invisible — a meaningful gap for a mutation that targets a specific material.

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 does well on the nested node fields (type, name, parameters, node_position) and connection fields (from, from_port, to, to_port), but says nothing about the top-level `position` or `material_id` parameters, leaving half of the four parameters unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('add ... nodes and their internal connections') and scopes it with a batch cap and undo semantics, which implicitly separates it from the singular add_node/connect_nodes siblings. It never names an alternative tool explicitly, so it lands just short of 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?

The phrase 'in one undoable operation' implies the batch use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus add_node, connect_nodes, or validate_graph_fragment, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g., validating a fragment before adding). Usage must be inferred.

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