Add node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose two useful behaviors: id auto-generated when omitted and label defaulting to id. However, it says nothing about duplicate-id handling, whether a graph must be loaded first, or permission/error behavior for a mutation tool.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the most important default behavior is front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a mutation tool with no annotations and 40% schema coverage, the description covers defaults but omits duplicate handling, prerequisites, and the meaning of the unrendered 'properties' parameter.

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 coverage is only 40% (style and position are described in-schema; id, label, and properties are not). The description usefully compensates for the undocumented id and label by explaining auto-generation and defaulting, but leaves 'properties' entirely unexplained in both places.

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 and resource ('Add a node') that clearly maps to a graph mutation. It does not name or contrast with siblings like add_edge or edit_node, but the action is unambiguous on its own.

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 no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not mention alternatives such as edit_node for modifying an existing node. Usage must be inferred from the tool name and sibling list.

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