Create Node

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of explaining side effects. It mentions 'with optional properties' and lists properties, but does not disclose return values, insertion behavior, or potential side effects like overwriting. This is adequate but not rich; it provides some context without deep behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and types, and a brief redirection to alternatives. No wasted words.

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 description is quite complete for a simple create tool: lists types, optional props, and alternatives. However, it lacks information about the return value (e.g., new node ID), which would be useful given there is no output schema.

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?

The schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add much. It does mention 'optional properties' which aligns with the props param, but overall it adds minimal meaning 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 clearly states 'Create a node' with an enumerated list of supported types (FRAME, RECTANGLE, etc.), specifying the verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by directing users to dedicated tools for tables and shapes-with-text.

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?

It explicitly states 'For tables, shapes-with-text, etc., use dedicated tools,' providing a clear when-not-to-use and alternative. The context of it being the general node creation tool is evident from the enumerated types.

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