rsap_add_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that node numbers are auto-assigned if omitted and clearly lists coordinates in metres, but does not mention side effects, error conditions, or mutating nature beyond 'Create'. Some transparency present, but gaps remain.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action, followed by a clean argument list. Each sentence serves a purpose, with no filler or redundancy.

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 additive operation, the description covers the essentials: coordinates, units, and optional numbering. It does not mention return values or the need for an open project, but given the low complexity and no output schema, the omission is minor and the tool description is sufficiently complete for its context.

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 only titles and types, leaving the description to explain each parameter's meaning and units. The Args section fully documents x/y/z as coordinates in metres and specifies that 'number' is optional with auto-assignment behavior, adding significant value 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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('a single node') with clear coordinate specification in metres, distinguishing it from the sibling tool rsap_add_nodes which likely handles multiple nodes. The purpose is 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 creating one node at a time, especially given the sibling rsap_add_nodes for bulk creation, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool or mention prerequisites like an open project. Guidance is implied rather than stated.

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