Flatten Node

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and openWorldHint, but the description expands on this with 'Lossy — original structure is not recoverable', explicitly informing the irreversibility of the operation. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured hints.

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 two short sentences with no unnecessary wording. It front-loads the action and follows with a key caveat, achieving maximum clarity in minimal space.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool with an output schema and declarative annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and caution. It does not mention prerequisites like the nodeName must match node_info, but the schema covers that. Overall, it is sufficient given the available structured information.

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 provides 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the tool description does not need to explain them. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is already in 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 the specific verb 'Flatten' and the resource 'a node and its children', with the result 'a single vector'. This directly conveys the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like node_ungroup or node_transform.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only warns that the operation is lossy, but does not mention scenarios where flattening is appropriate or when another tool should be chosen instead.

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