add_place

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the auto-cursor behavior and the need for explicit coordinates, stating that without them the element collides on follow-up edits. This adds significant behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 well-structured with an intro, usage guidance, layout procedure, and parameter list. It is concise but not overly short; each section adds value. Minor room for tightening.

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 five parameters and no schema descriptions, the description covers parameter meanings and usage context thoroughly. It references the essential companion tool (find_free_position). However, it does not mention error conditions or what the output schema contains (though output schema exists).

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%, but the description's Args section provides clear meaning for all five parameters, e.g., 'tokens: Initial token count (marking)', 'x: Canvas X coordinate — obtain from find_free_position'. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 single place (position) to the Petri net.' It distinguishes itself from many sibling tools by explicitly noting it is a low-level tool for when high-level patterns don't cover the topology.

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 explicit guidance: use only when no high-level pattern covers the required topology, and ALWAYS call find_free_position first. It also lists alternatives (e.g., add_generator, add_machine) and gives a step-by-step procedure.

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