create_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 states the tool creates a node but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, whether creation is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Create a new knowledge node in the graph') and includes relevant examples without unnecessary details. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral aspects like side effects. For a creation tool with multiple parameters and no structured safety hints, more context is needed to be complete.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by listing examples of node types ('question, answer, doc, snippet, or gotcha'), which partially overlaps with the 'type' enum. It doesn't provide additional meaning beyond what the schema specifies, meeting 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 ('Create a new knowledge node') and specifies the resource ('in the graph'), including examples of node types. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_edge' (edges vs nodes) and 'edit_node' (create vs edit). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings like 'submit_proof' or 'vote_node'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or compare it to sibling tools like 'edit_node' (for updates) or 'submit_proof' (for different operations). Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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