Add or update nodes

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses idempotent upsert behavior, verbatim authoring requirements, the rule that exactly one node per unit has no parent, tolerance for out-of-order children, and that col is ignored in outline mode. This is rich behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 core action is front-loaded, and each remaining section earns its place by governing correct invocation: idempotency, verbatim content, paren containment, and col behavior. Dense but not wasteful.

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 no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers idempotency, node shape, required vs optional fields, mode-specific behavior, and content policy. It is slightly incomplete on the semantics of entity_ids and axis values, and on what the response or warning behavior looks like in full.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by listing the node object shape, optional fields, nested structures for filters/sections, and detailed rules for parent and col. However, entity_ids, axis1_values, and axis2_values are named but not semantically explained, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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 opens with 'Batch-add/update timeline nodes (idempotent upsert by id)', which names the specific action, resource, and a key behavioral trait. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like delete_nodes, add_connections, and build_timeline.

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 description provides mode-specific invocation guidance for linear vs outline modes and explains when to omit parent or col. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over sibling tools, so selection guidance is implicit rather than directly stated.

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