graph_add_node

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: automatic vector indexing for text in data.text/data.title, optional workspace_id with fallback, and special handling for fileref nodes. However, it does not mention return type, idempotency, or side effects.

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 plus a note, covering purpose and key details efficiently. Could be structured with bullet points for the type list for easier scanning, but still concise.

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?

Lacks output schema and does not describe return values (e.g., node ID). For a creation tool, this is a significant gap. Also does not clarify if parent_id is required or optional despite being nullable.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining how data.text and data.title trigger vector indexing, and that data.path is used for fileref nodes, going beyond the schema's generic descriptions.

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?

Clearly states 'Add a node to the knowledge graph' with specific verb and resource. Lists supported types, distinguishing it from sibling tools like graph_add_relation and graph_delete_node.

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?

Provides some context like automatic indexing for vectorizable types and path for fileref, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives like graph_update_node or graph_decompose.

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