upsert_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the node will be recorded as INFERRED and evidence is required. However, it does not clarify the upsert behavior (update vs insert) or mention permissions, side effects, or other behavioral traits. Some value added but incomplete.

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 extremely concise—two clauses in one sentence. It is front-loaded with purpose. However, it sacrifices some clarity for brevity (e.g., 'contribute' could be more precise). Still, it's efficient and avoids unnecessary words.

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 has 6 parameters, an output schema, and upsert behavior, the description is too brief. It does not explain data types, valid values for 'type', how existing nodes are handled, or the structure of the response. For a tool with many siblings, this lack of detail hinders correct invocation.

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 for parameter meanings. It only references 'evidence' (as required quotes). Other required parameters (node_id, type, name) and optional ones (attrs, ambiguous) are unexplained. This leaves the agent with minimal guidance beyond schema types.

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 tool's purpose: to add nodes that scanners missed. It uses a specific verb ('contribute') and resource ('node'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'annotate_node' which would modify existing nodes. However, 'contribute' is slightly vague compared to 'add' or 'create', preventing 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 implies usage when scanners missed a node, and mentions evidence requirement. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or list alternatives. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or direct comparison to other tools.

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