annotate_node

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It states 'attach an annotation' but does not specify whether it overwrites existing annotations, requires the node to exist, or what happens on duplicate annotation. Critical safety considerations are omitted.

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 short sentence, which is concise but under-specified. While it avoids verbosity, it sacrifices necessary detail, making it merely adequate rather than well-structured.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. An output schema exists but is not referenced. The tool's return value and behavioral constraints are absent.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions), and the tool description adds no explanation of any parameters. 'name', 'kind', 'description', 'source', and 'session_id' are left entirely to the agent to infer from their titles and context.

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 the verb 'attach' and resource 'annotation to a graph node,' clearly stating the action and target. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'annotations_of' (retrieval) and 'clear_annotations' (deletion).

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 such as 'annotations_of' or 'clear_annotations.' No context on prerequisites or edge cases is given.

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