ap_node_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior on its own. It does state the core mutation (adding a node), the return value, and valid types. It does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or error behavior when no active material exists or an invalid type is supplied.

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 main sentence is compact and front-loaded with the action and return value. The long list of valid types is justified because there is no enum in the schema, and there is no filler or redundant explanation.

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?

For a tool with three simple parameters, the description covers what it does, where it operates, what it returns, and what input values are allowed. The main gap is not stating the behavior when there is no active material or when the type is invalid, but the core calling context is sufficiently clear.

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?

The schema already describes x, y, and type, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds genuine value by listing the full universe of valid node type constants, which is significant because the schema only gives examples and no enum.

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 states a specific verb ('Add'), resource ('node'), target ('active material's graph'), placement ('canvas position'), and return value ('new id'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ap_node_remove, ap_node_connect, and ap_node_set_value.

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 a new node should be inserted into the active material graph, and it gives the set of valid node types. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over sibling tools or mention prerequisites such as an active material being present.

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