annotate_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that confidence is unchanged, which is helpful, but does not mention side effects, overwrite behavior, or permissions required.

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?

A single sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no extraneous words. Every word earns its place.

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 (anyOf, defaults, required params) and no schema descriptions, the description is somewhat complete but lacks details on how to use evidence and attrs. The output schema exists, so return values are covered.

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%, yet the description only vaguely references 'evidence or attributes' without explaining the format or usage of the three parameters (node_ref, evidence, attrs). The description adds minimal value over the schema itself.

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 (attach), the resource (existing node), and the constraint (without changing confidence). It distinguishes from sibling tools like upsert_node which modify node properties.

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 for adding evidence or attributes to an existing node, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., upsert_node, execute_action) or prerequisites like node existence.

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