add_argument

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the operation, the important constraint that an undercut must target an argument rather than a claim, and the return value of a new ID plus map state. It does not mention validation failures or side effects beyond the obvious map mutation, but it is still substantially transparent.

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 organized with short Args entries and a Returns line. The relation bullet list is the longest section but is necessary because it defines domain-specific semantics. There is no filler 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?

The description covers target ID format and existence requirement, all relation values and their target constraints, label and text purpose, and the return value. Given no annotations and no schema descriptions, nothing essential for calling the tool correctly is missing.

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 zero description coverage, so the description fully compensates by defining each parameter with examples and enumerating all valid relation values with their meanings. This is exactly the level of detail needed for an agent to choose and fill parameters correctly.

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'), a specific resource ('new argument'), and the precise scoping condition ('responds to a claim or argument already in the map'). It also clearly differs from sibling tools like add_claim because it is about attaching an argument to an existing node, not creating a claim.

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 makes the intended scenario clear through the phrase 'already in the map' and through the detailed relation semantics. However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as add_claim or link, leaving some routing to inference.

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