node_create_action

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that actions perform operations like sending emails and making HTTP requests, hinting at potential side effects of the created node. However, it omits key behavioral details such as required permissions, whether the scheme must exist, what happens on failure, and whether creation is reversible.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by context and a prerequisite. It is efficient with no wasted words, though the example sentence could be seen as slightly extraneous. Overall, it is well-structured.

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 purpose and a prerequisite, and the input schema is fully documented. However, with no output schema, the description should ideally explain what is returned (e.g., node ID) and any error conditions or side effects. These omissions leave the agent with an incomplete picture for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters. The description adds only a minor hint about action_type values via 'Call get_nodes_info first to see available types.' Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Create a new action node in a scheme.' It also provides examples of what actions do ('sending emails, making HTTP requests'), which helps distinguish this from sibling tools like node_create_trigger. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the trigger sibling, leaving some inference to the agent.

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 gives a clear prerequisite: 'Call get_nodes_info first to see available types.' This is actionable usage guidance. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus node_create_trigger, but the action/trigger distinction is implied by the naming and description.

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