push_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses the most important behavioral traits: repeated calls with the same id update the node, and properties are merged. It does not discuss TTL expiration or what happens to non-property fields on update, but core behavior is 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and usage timing, followed by the essential merge behavior. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 purpose, timing, and upsert/merge semantics well. But for a 10-parameter tool with no annotations and 50% schema coverage, it leaves several optional parameter semantics and the distinction from update_node unaddressed. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but gaps remain.

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 description adds meaning to id (re-use updates) and properties (merged rather than replaced), going beyond the schema. However, it does not help with several undocumented parameters like tags, layer, parent_id, style_hint, or position_hint, and schema coverage is only 50%.

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?

Description clearly states the action and resource: draw a discovered node on the graph and update it if the same id is used again. It differentiates by context ('discovered during analysis') but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling update_node or push_batch.

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?

Tells the agent when to call the tool: immediately upon node discovery during analysis. It implies the primary use case but does not provide explicit exclusions or mention alternatives like update_node for post-hoc edits.

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