gns3_add_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool adds a node, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. The mention of default values for some parameters adds minimal context but insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a structured Args section. It's efficient with minimal waste, though the Args formatting is slightly verbose. Every sentence earns its place by providing necessary parameter details.

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 9 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description partially compensates by documenting 6 parameters and implying a write operation. An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. However, for a mutation tool with many parameters, the gaps in parameter documentation and lack of behavioral context make it only minimally adequate.

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 lists 6 parameters (project_id, node_name, template_id, x, y, compute_id) with brief explanations, covering 6 out of 9 total parameters. However, it omits server_url, username, and password, leaving them undocumented. The explanations are basic (e.g., 'Name for the new node') and don't add deep semantic value beyond naming.

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 the action ('Add a network device/node') and target ('to a project using a template'), which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'gns3_add_link' or 'gns3_add_shape'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'gns3_duplicate_node' or 'gns3_update_node', which also involve nodes, so it's not a perfect 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 implies usage by mentioning 'use gns3_list_templates to get available templates', which suggests a prerequisite step. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'gns3_duplicate_node' or 'gns3_update_node', nor does it specify exclusions or edge cases.

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