map_add_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return of the new node id, which is helpful, but omits details about defaults (x/y positions), required sheet context, potential errors, or side effects. The tool's behavior beyond the basic add operation is opaque.

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 two short sentences that convey the essential action and return value without any filler. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded.

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 simplicity and full schema coverage, the description covers the core purpose and return value. However, it lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., existing sheet) or behavior when optional parameters are omitted. Still, for a straightforward add operation, it 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 already covers all parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, such as how x/y interact with map coordinates or how type affects rendering. It relies entirely on the schema, which is acceptable given 100% coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('new node to the map'), clearly distinguishing the action from sibling tools like map_update_node or map_delete_node. It also states the return value ('Returns the new node id'), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. While 'Add a new node' implies creation, it fails to differentiate from related operations like map_update_node or map_add_connection, and doesn't state whether a sheet must exist or how to handle duplicate names.

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