ms_add_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Add' implies mutation, and 'Unique ID' hints at a uniqueness constraint, but the description does not state what happens on a duplicate node_id, whether the edit is saved or reversible, or whether an editor session must be active. For a graph-mutating tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a substantial gap.

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 primary action sentence is front-loaded and the Args block is compact with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a four-parameter tool, though the example strings could be tightened.

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. But with no annotations and a bare schema, a mutating graph tool should at least note the uniqueness/duplicate behavior and any editor-session prerequisite; those omissions leave the definition only marginally 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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it names all four parameters with meaning ('Node type name' with concrete examples like 'Sine', 'Wave Player (Mono)', 'Unique ID for this node instance', editor X/Y positions). This is more than the bare schema offers, though it could clarify units/coordinate space for position.

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 MetaSounds node to the current graph.' An agent immediately knows this creates a node in the MetaSounds graph. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like ms_add_variable_node or ms_add_variable, which also add nodes to the same graph.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. whether a graph must be open or created first via ms_create_source/ms_build_graph), and no mention of alternatives such as ms_add_variable_node for variable nodes. The agent is left to infer context entirely.

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