Add concepts to an existing map

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It usefully states that existing content is preserved and that the map is a 'durable artifact'. However, it omits important details such as what happens on duplicate concept labels (schema says 'new or updated'), whether the operation is idempotent, any required permissions, or the return payload. The description adds some value but not enough for full 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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and then the use-case context. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition of structured fields. It is well-structured and succinct.

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?

The description covers the overall purpose and usage context, and the schema fully documents all parameters. It does not explain return values, error behavior, or edge cases like invalid labels, but for an append-like tool with no output schema, the context is reasonably complete. The description is sufficient for the primary use case of incrementally building a map.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it merely names concepts and relations, which are already defined in the schema. It does not elaborate on parameter formats, defaults, or the template enum beyond what the schema already provides. Hence, the description does not elevate parameter understanding beyond the structured data.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Append concepts and relations to an existing NodeLand map'. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing it modifies an existing map rather than creating a new one (create_map) or retrieving (get_map/list_maps). The detail 'preserving what is already there' further clarifies its additive scope.

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 tells when to use the tool: 'Use across a conversation when the agent keeps discovering structure'. It implies the alternative is a one-shot action (likely create_map) by saying 'not a one-shot dump'. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to make a reasonable choice.

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