armorpaint_add_node

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not required to prove mutation. It adds useful context by saying it returns the updated graph including the new node ID, and it frames the operation as graph modification. No contradiction with annotations, but it does not disclose details about side effects on node positions, materials, or existing graph structure.

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 a single efficient sentence with no filler. Every clause earns its place: the action, the type source, and the return value. It is appropriately sized for a simple mutation tool.

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 tool has four parameters with zero schema coverage, and the description only partially addresses one of them. While an output schema exists and the description does state the return value, the meaning of x/y coordinates and material_id remains unknown, leaving a meaningful gap 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation, but it only clarifies `type` by sourcing it from list_node_types. The parameters x, y, and material_id are left entirely unexplained, so an agent must guess their meaning and valid values.

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 a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('material node'), and includes the useful constraint that the type comes from list_node_types. It names the return value (graph with new node ID), which helps distinguish it from other graph utilities, though it does not explicitly contrast with remove/connect tools.

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 gives implicit usage guidance by saying the type must be one returned by list_node_types, which is a helpful prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like armorpaint_set_node_value, armorpaint_connect_nodes, or armorpaint_create_material, nor does it list any exclusions.

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