add_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by explaining that configuration is day-0 startup config applied on first boot, but it does not mention side effects such as whether the lab must exist, whether the node is powered on initially, or what happens on failure. This is moderate transparency for a mutating 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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action. It then uses a clean, readable format to explain the two most important parameters with concrete examples. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no unnecessary verbosity.

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 tool has 9 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, so a complete description would need to cover more than just the purpose and two parameters. While the core required parameters (lab_id, label, node_definition) are either self-explanatory or explained, optional parameters like image_definition and the behavior of coordinates/resources are left undocumented. The output schema helps, but the description is only partially complete for this complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for two key parameters: node_definition (platform id from list_node_definitions with examples) and configuration (day-0 startup config text). However, other parameters like image_definition, ram, cpus, x, and y are not explained, leaving gaps for less obvious parameters.

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 opens with 'Add a node to an existing lab', using a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like remove_node and start_node. The resource is unambiguous, and the action is immediately understandable.

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 clear context: adding a node to an existing lab, and it references list_node_definitions() as a prerequisite for choosing node_definition. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to select it over unrelated sibling tools.

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