map_bulk_add_nodes

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey safety and behavior on its own. It discloses the return format (array of created ids) and notes that nodes accept fields beyond the schema via the map_add_node reference. However, it fails to address critical bulk-operation behaviors such as atomicity, partial failure handling, or limits on batch size, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 three concise sentences, front-loading the core action ('Add multiple nodes in a single call') and immediately specifying input inheritance and output format. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy or excessive length.

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 (bulk creation with a multi-field node object) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers core purpose, input fields, and return value, but omits important operational details like error handling, maximum batch size, or whether the operation is atomic. These gaps are notable for such a tool.

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's node array has 100% coverage, but the description adds meaningful context by explaining that each node inherits fields from map_add_node and includes type-specific fields, with examples like ports, dockerServices, and domains. This helps an agent understand the structure and applicability of fields beyond a bare schema listing, going beyond the schema baseline.

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 tool's action: 'Add multiple nodes in a single call.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling map_add_node by emphasizing the bulk nature and explicitly mentions the return of an array of created IDs, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 phrase 'in a single call' implies use when adding many nodes at once versus calling map_add_node repeatedly. This provides clear context for when the tool is appropriate, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. The sibling list reinforces this interpretation.

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