edit_action_graph

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It clearly indicates this mutates an existing graph by setting attribute values and adding connections. It also gives useful detail about value override structure. However, it does not disclose side effects such as whether existing connections are preserved, whether attribute overrides are permanent, or whether any validation or failure modes exist beyond the graph being existing.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: a one-sentence summary, a short usage intent, focused examples for the two main ScriptNode cases, and a compact Args breakdown. Every section contributes practical value, and the examples are directly actionable without excessive verbosity.

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 moderately complex editing tool, the description covers the three graph-specific parameters with structure and examples, includes a default value for graph_path, and provides enough context to edit ScriptNodes. Gaps remain around command_id and idempotency_key semantics, and there is no guidance about when to use connect_action_graph versus this tool. Output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required.

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 an excellent job for graph_path, values, and connections by providing structured Args documentation, field descriptions, and concrete ScriptNode examples. However, command_id and idempotency_key are not mentioned at all, leaving those two parameters dependent on their self-explanatory names. This is strong but not complete compensation.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Edit an existing OmniGraph Action Graph: set attribute values or add connections.' It clearly distinguishes itself from creation tools like create_action_graph by emphasizing 'already-created graph.' However, it doesn't explicitly disambiguate from the sibling connect_action_graph, which also adds connections, so it falls just 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?

The description provides clear usage context: 'Use this to update ScriptNode scripts, change attribute values, or add new connections on an already-created graph.' It implies this is for existing graphs, not new ones, but it does not explicitly name when to prefer an alternative like connect_action_graph or create_action_graph. No exclusions or alternative routing is given.

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