mindgap_add_node

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions 'upsert' (implies insert or update), return values (persisted row, stubs_created, warnings), and a default for confidence. Missing details on idempotency, conflict behavior, permissions, or destructive potential.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core action. However, could be slightly more structured to include parameter hints.

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 9 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. Lacks explanation of upsert semantics, meaning of 'stubs_created', and details on 'replace' behavior. Significant gaps for proper tool usage.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. Only the 'confidence' parameter is explained as defaulting to 0.7. Other key parameters like 'replace', 'id', 'type', 'tags', 'urls' are not described, leaving the agent uninformed.

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 'Single node upsert', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like mindgap_get_node (read) and mindgap_remove_node (delete). However, 'upsert' is jargon and might not be universally understood.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mindgap_ingest or mindgap_get_node. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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