add_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action 'Add' but doesn't clarify if this is a mutation (likely yes, given the context), what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, or how errors are handled. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and node types. It's front-loaded with the essential information and wastes no words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'node' represents in this graph context, how parameters interact, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool with rich input schema but zero structured documentation, the description should provide more context to guide effective use.

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 undocumented parameters. It only mentions 'node_type' with its enum values, but doesn't explain the purpose of other parameters like 'graph_id', 'node_id', 'label', 'phase', 'tool', or 'properties'. With 7 parameters total and minimal explanation, it fails to add meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 the verb 'Add' and the resource 'node', specifying the types of nodes that can be added (action/decision/verification/loop/success/failure). It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_node' or 'remove_node' by focusing on creation. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'bulk_add_nodes', which handles multiple nodes at once, leaving some sibling differentiation incomplete.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing graph from 'create_state_graph'), when to choose 'bulk_add_nodes' for multiple nodes, or how it relates to 'update_node' for modifications. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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