nyarhi_add_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains parameter formats but omits critical details such as whether existing nodes are overwritten, whether the operation is atomic, what happens on duplicate IDs, or any authentication/authorization requirements. The 'store' parameter is mentioned but its semantics are left vague.

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 compact: a one-line purpose followed by a parameter-explaining sentence. The use of backticks and the explicit --prop syntax is efficient. It does not waste words, though a bulleted list might improve scanability. The overall size is appropriate for the information conveyed.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values need not be described), the tool is a mutating operation with no annotation coverage. The description fails to address behavior on duplicate node IDs, whether it updates or fails, the meaning of 'store file', or how props map to the JSON object expected by the schema. These gaps leave an agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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 does explain all four parameters, including example node types and the syntax for props (--prop k=v pairs), which is valuable. However, it introduces a naming mismatch: it refers to 'node_type' while the schema defines the property as 'type'. This inconsistency could lead an agent to invoke the tool with the wrong parameter name, undermining the clarity of an otherwise useful explanation.

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 begins with a clear, specific verb-resource pair: "Add a typed node to the knowledge graph." This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like nyarhi_add_edge and nyarhi_search, and the rest of the sentence clarifies the graph context.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that adding an edge requires a separate tool, nor does it state prerequisites or conditions (e.g., node existence, uniqueness). The only implicit signal is the tool name itself.

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