mdpa_add_nodes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: ids auto-default to the next free id, edits happen in place unless 'output' is given, and sub_model_part is optional. However, the 'overwrite' parameter is never mentioned, leaving a meaningful mutation-behavior 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and format, then defaults and edit semantics. Every sentence carries information, though the flow could be marginally tighter.

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 needn't be described, and the description covers most call semantics. But for a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the unexplained 'overwrite' parameter leaves the definition incomplete.

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 explains coordinates format, id defaults, and the dotted sub_model_part path, but says nothing about 'overwrite' or 'path', so it only partially covers the six 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add nodes to a .mdpa') with concrete format detail ([x, y] or [x, y, z]). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like mdpa_move_nodes, mdpa_delete_nodes, and mdpa_get_nodes.

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 purpose implies when to use it (adding nodes to an existing mesh), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer a sibling such as mdpa_create_geometry_mesh or mdpa_create_structured_mesh, nor any stated prerequisites.

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