New Graph

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key destructive trait: the current unsaved graph is replaced. It does not say whether there is a confirmation prompt, whether saved graphs on disk are unaffected, or whether the returned object identity matters — real gaps for a no-annotation mutation tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope and the destructive side effect appear immediately. Nothing in the sentence could be removed without losing information.

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 output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the core novelty plus destructive behavior are covered. What remains missing is parameter guidance in the absence of any schema descriptions, which leaves the tool slightly under-specified for a mutation call.

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% for two parameters, so the description must compensate and it says nothing about 'name' or 'description'. An agent cannot infer from the text whether the name defaults to 'untitled', whether an empty description is acceptable, or whether either affects the created graph's identity.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: creates a new, empty flowgraph. The parenthetical adds the crucial scope that it is empty and replaces the unsaved current graph, which distinguishes it from load_graph in intent. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it differs from, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is implied: call it when you want a blank graph rather than an existing one, and the note about replacing the unsaved graph hints this is a starting point. However, it never states when to prefer load_graph or save_graph first, nor whether unsaved work should be saved beforehand — that routing is left to inference.

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