roadmap_add_node

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains that children inherit segment from parent unless set, priority range, and return value. However, it omits validation behavior (e.g., invalid kind, non-existent parent_id), side effects (e.g., tree reordering), and authorization or rate limiting. Adequate but incomplete.

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 sentences perfectly front-loaded. First sentence states core purpose. Second sentence efficiently packs all parameter details and return value. No fluff, every word 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?

Given no output schema shown, description covers return (id). Input schema is well covered except title. The tree structure context (nesting, inheritance) is explained. Missing edge cases (e.g., top-level without segment) but overall complete for typical use. Sibling tools exist but not referenced.

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 carries full burden. It explains kind (lists values), parent_id (nesting, 0=top-level, inheritance), priority (1-5, 0=none). These add significant meaning beyond the schema. However, the required 'title' parameter is not described at all, leaving a gap.

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 'Add a node to the roadmap tree', with a specific verb and resource. It enumerates the allowed kind values (project, segment, phase, epic, task), which distinguishes it from other tools like roadmap_update or roadmap_view. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 implies when to use (to add a new node) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like roadmap_update or roadmap_block. There is no guidance on prerequisites (e.g., roadmap must exist) or when not to use. The sibling tools are listed but not referenced.

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