add_nodes

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

Annotations are not provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that nodes are added to an existing source, which implies mutation and the requirement of an existing source. However, it does not disclose details like whether adding is incremental, whether existing children are affected, or error cases (e.g., invalid source_id). Since no annotations exist, there's room for more transparency.

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 description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's core function. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and no extraneous details are present. Every word earns its place.

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 the complexity of the input schema (nested array of nodes with optional fields), the description is minimal. There is no output schema, so the description should explain what happens on success (e.g., returns created node IDs or status). It doesn't mention required fields beyond what's in the schema (title is required). It also doesn't state limits or edge cases like max 500 nodes.

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 description mentions 'Add one or more documentation nodes', which clarifies that the nodes parameter is an array. Schema coverage is only 50%, but the description compensates by implying the batch nature of the operation. It doesn't detail each subfield, but the schema provides most property definitions. The description adds value by indicating multiple nodes can be added at once.

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 the action (add), the resource (documentation nodes), and the target (an existing source). It distinguishes from siblings like update_nodes and remove_nodes. The verb 'Add' is specific and the resource is well-defined, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 implies usage for adding nodes but does not explicitly state when to use this over update_nodes or create_source. There is no mention of prerequisites like needing to create a source first or that nodes must belong to an existing source. It lacks guidance on when not to use this tool.

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