nodesAddNodeSubInterfaces

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It states the tool adds sub-interfaces (implying mutation) but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The technical syntax note adds little behavioral value.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence provides a technical usage note that, while not adding much value, doesn't significantly detract from conciseness. No unnecessary elaboration is present.

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 is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'adding' entails operationally, what the tool returns, error conditions, or prerequisites. The high schema coverage helps with parameters but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral and output context.

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%, providing detailed documentation for all parameters. The description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, merely giving a generic syntax example. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Add') and resource ('one or more sub-interfaces'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'nodesUpdateNodeSubInterface' by focusing on creation rather than modification, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 like 'nodesUpdateNodeSubInterface' or 'nodesDeleteNodeSubInterface'. It only includes a technical usage note about argument passing, which doesn't help with contextual decision-making.

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