create_spare_parameter

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 only says 'Add' without mentioning side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or what happens on success. It does not even state whether the tool returns anything or modifies the node in place, which is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 standard docstring with a one-line summary and a bulleted arg list. It is concise, front-loaded, and every line contributes. No redundant information, but it could be slightly more structured with parameter groupings or examples.

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 description covers the parameters well but omits behavioral context such as return values, error conditions, or side effects. There is no output schema and no annotations, so the agent is left without knowing what to expect after invocation. It also does not clarify when to use this tool versus the plural variant, leaving a gap in decision-making.

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 zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides brief but meaningful explanations for all 7 parameters, including valid values for 'parm_type' and the type restriction for 'min_val'/'max_val' (float/int only). This adds value beyond the schema's bare titles, though it could be more detailed about 'default_value' and format expectations.

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 states a clear action and target: 'Add a spare parameter to a node.' It is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'create_spare_parameters' (plural), leaving the distinction to the name rather than the description.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'create_spare_parameters' or general node creation tools. The description lacks any context about scenarios, prerequisites, or constraints that would help an agent decide to use it.

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