add_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses startup-config enabled and VPCS ignoring it, but lacks details on side effects like overwriting or error conditions. Partially addresses behavior.

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?

Three sentences are efficient and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the structure could be improved by grouping related info. Minor waste in listing templates inline.

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 15 parameters and no annotations, the description covers key behavioral and usage aspects but leaves many parameter details unexplained. An output schema exists, so return values are handled externally.

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?

Of 15 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value for template, image, and config, but does not explain cpu, ram, top, left, icon, name, delay, serial, console, ethernet, or node_type. Partial compensation.

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 'Add a node to a lab', with a specific verb and resource. It provides template examples and distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_node and get_node_config.

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?

It gives common templates and suggests using list_images for available images. It also explains startup-config behavior and VPCS quirk, but does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives for node types.

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