Add Node

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, establishing it as a non-destructive write operation. The description adds no further behavioral context—it merely repeats the enum values from the schema and the generic 'workflow graph' concept, without disclosing side effects, validations, or auto-detection 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence communicates the core purpose with examples. No wasted words, and the structure is immediately scannable.

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?

Despite a rich schema and annotations, the tool has 6 parameters, a nested metadata object, and no output schema. The description does not mention return values, success behavior, or how the node interacts with the existing graph, leaving gaps for an agent to infer.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 6 parameters, including the enum for type and a description for metadata. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already offers, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 tool's action ('Create a new node') and its resource ('the workflow graph'), with explicit examples of node types (task, decision, artifact, etc.). This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like add_edge, update_node, and remove_node.

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 implies usage when you need to add a node of the listed types, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, so only implied guidance is present.

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