build_sop_chain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose key behaviors: nodes are created in order, automatically connected to the previous node, and all done in one call. It does not mention return values or handle edge cases like invalid node types, but it is substantially transparent about what the operation does.

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 opens with a one-sentence purpose statement, immediately adds usage guidance, gives a compact schema for the step dict, and includes a concrete example and Args section. There is no filler; every section earns its place.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential invocation details: parent path, step format, ordering behavior, and automatic wiring. The only notable gap is no mention of the return value or how the created nodes are identified afterward, which is a minor omission given the otherwise strong guidance.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It compensates well by defining the step dict structure with its fields ('type', optional 'name', optional 'params'), explaining parent_path as the parent SOP network path, and providing a concrete example. It does not enumerate all possible node type strings, but the example clarifies enough for correct invocation.

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 and resource: 'Build a sequential chain of SOP nodes wired together in a single call.' It also distinguishes itself from the relevant sibling create_node by explicitly stating it is preferred for linear SOP chains, making its 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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool: 'PREFERRED over individual create_node calls for linear SOP chains.' It names the alternative, gives the condition, and gives the rationale (single round-trip, significantly faster). The word 'linear' also implicitly excludes branching/non-linear networks from its intended use.

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