add_transition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's creation nature and layout requirement but does not mention side effects, permissions, or confirmation of success. While adequate, it could be more explicit about the operation's safety or output.

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: a brief purpose statement, a usage guideline, a layout prerequisite, and a clear parameter list. It is appropriately detailed for 9 parameters but could be slightly more concise.

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 (9 parameters, no annotations), the description covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and prerequisite layout calls. It does not explain return values, but an output schema is present, so it is fairly complete.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter's meaning and allowed values (e.g., distribution options, probability range, time_unit units). This adds significant value beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 the action ('Add a single transition') and the resource ('to the Petri net'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly labeling itself as a low-level tool for use when high-level patterns do not apply.

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 existing pattern covers the required topology' and 'for standard constructs, prefer high-level pattern tools.' It also prescribes a prerequisite step ('ALWAYS call find_free_position...') which aids correct invocation.

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