add_nodes_to_view

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

Annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds value by explaining the rollback_on_error behavior, the success envelope with node_ids and count, and specific error types (ModelOperationError, ElementNotFoundError). This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 with a clear main sentence, a bullet-like explanation of node shape, and separate sections for args, returns, and errors. It is relatively concise but could be tightened slightly; the node item shape example adds clarity without being overly verbose.

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 (3 parameters, nested objects, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, parameters, returns, and errors. It implies the view must exist and handles failure modes. The output schema is mentioned, so return values are explained. It does not explicitly list prerequisites but is largely complete.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It explains all three parameters: view_id (target view ID), nodes (list of node objects with shape details including optional/required fields), and rollback_on_error (default true). This 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 'Add multiple visual nodes to a view in one call,' specifying the resource (view) and the action (add nodes). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'add_node_to_view' by being a batch variant and explains that each node supports the same fields. This provides clear purpose and differentiation.

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 that this tool is for adding multiple nodes in one call, contrasting with the single-node sibling. It mentions the rollback_on_error behavior and error handling, which provides context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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