mdan_graph_add_node

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure; it does state that the tool performs an upsert and records file hashes for staleness checks, which are meaningful side effects. It does not disclose overwrite scope, effects on existing edges, permissions, or return behavior, so transparency is only partial.

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 front-loaded sentence: the operation and object come first, followed by a useful parenthetical about staleness tracking. Every part adds meaning and there is no filler.

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 captures the core purpose and one important downstream behavior, while the schema covers parameters. It is less complete on routing guidance and on what happens to an existing node or connected edges during an update.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all five parameters; the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The mention of hash recording hints at why path matters, but it does not add format or relationship details beyond the schema.

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 names a specific operation — add/update a node in the MDAN context graph — and ties it to hash recording for staleness checks, which separates it from siblings like mdan_graph_add_edge and mdan_graph_visualize. It loses the fifth point because it says 'artifact node' while the schema permits artifact, decision, and debate types, so the stated scope is slightly narrower than the actual tool.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies a graph maintenance action but does not direct agents to mdan_graph_add_edge for relationships or to mdan_state_update for other state changes.

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