add_niagara_graph_node

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden for transparency. It explains the creation pattern, that it spawns on both asset and edit-copy graphs, and details conditional parameter usage. Missing specific side effects, auth needs, or rate limits, but sufficient for understanding behavior.

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: a short opening sentence, a sentence on implementation detail, then a clear bulleted Args section. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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 tool's complexity (12 parameters, conditional logic), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameter dependencies, companion tools, and verification step. Complete with output schema present.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly, explaining each parameter with context, conditional usage based on node_type, and examples for op_name and di_class. Adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 verb 'create' and resource 'node inside a Niagara graph'. It specifies multiple graph types (scratch-pad, dynamic-input, module graph) and references the Niagara editor pattern, distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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 guidance on when to use the tool and references companion tools like get_niagara_schema_actions, list_niagara_data_interface_functions, and list_niagara_script_parameters for discovery and verification. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tools for similar tasks.

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