add_golden_config_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. It explains the conceptual model (nodes, templates, versions) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as the requirement that the tree exists, the effect of the 'version' parameter, potential conflicts, or error behavior. The mutating nature is implied by 'Add' but not elaborated.

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 concise, front-loaded with the primary action, and the additional contextual sentences are relevant. It does not waste words, though the second sentence could be integrated more tightly.

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 moderate complexity, the presence of a full output schema, and complete parameter descriptions, the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks behavioral details like error handling or prerequisites, which is a gap for a mutating tool with no annotations.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the schema does most of the heavy lifting. The description adds minimal extra meaning by mentioning templates and versioning, but it does not clarify the 'path' or 'tree_name' semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 resource ('a new node to an existing Golden Configuration tree'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_golden_config_tree (which creates the tree itself). The domain explanation adds context.

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 that this tool is for adding to an existing tree, but it does not explicitly say when to use it over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. Some guidance on not using for tree creation would improve it.

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