Add node

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

Annotations are all false, so they carry little behavioral signal, and the description takes on the burden. It discloses that the tool writes a new node, returns only the assigned id, prints nothing else, and rejects invalid combinations on write. It omits details like side effects or rollback behavior, but for a create tool this is strong transparency.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: output behavior, required fields plus per-kind applicability, and routing to sibling tools. The essential information is front-loaded, and there is no fluff or repetition of schema content.

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 18 parameters, no output schema, and uninformative annotations, the description supplies the crucial context: what is returned, what is required, which fields are relevant per kind, and when to use alternatives. It loses one point because the 'fitness for g' statement conflicts with the schema's rejected-field behavior, which could lead an agent to construct an invalid call.

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 100%, so the description need not restate every parameter, and it does add a compact per-kind summarization of which fields apply. However, the summary says 'fitness for g', while the schema explicitly says the fitness parameter is a retired legacy label whose writes are rejected for g, recommending fitness_kind + fitness_target instead. This active inconsistency undermines the guidance and prevents a score above baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create one node of the given kind and return its assigned id'. It even gives an example id format, W-12, so the tool's core function is unmistakable. It also differentiates the tool from siblings by pointing to set, field, and link for other operations. This is a model of purpose clarity.

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 explicitly says 'To modify an existing node use set or field; to connect nodes use link', giving clear routing to alternatives. It also warns that invalid kind/field combinations are rejected on write, which tells agents to validate their parameter choices before calling. There is no ambiguity about when to use this tool.

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