Insert an integer key into a specified BST or AVL tree to learn and visualize insertion and balancing behavior.
Insert a key into the specified tree.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | The integer key to insert | |
| treeType | Yes | The type of tree to insert into |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about duplicate-key handling, whether the tree is mutated in place, rebalancing for avl, or error behavior. 'Insert' implies mutation but the details an agent needs are absent.
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?
A single short sentence that is front-loaded with the action and free of filler. It is efficient, though the brevity edges into under-specification rather than optimal density.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least indicate the effect (tree modified) and any return or duplicate semantics. Given the simple two-parameter schema, that required context is missing.
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 both parameters (key, treeType) are already documented in the schema, including the bst/avl enum. The description adds no syntax, range, or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (insert) plus the resource (a key) and target (tree), which cleanly distinguishes it from delete_node, search_node, print_tree and reset_tree without needing the schema. It does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this rather than delete_node or search_node, no prerequisites, and no mention of what treeType must already exist. The description offers no usage context at all.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.