Create a DRAFT graph from a template (see list_templates), returning its ID for later edits via update_graph.
Создать граф (DRAFT) из шаблона (см. list_templates). Возвращает граф с id — дальше правь через update_graph.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| botId | Yes | ||
| templateId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the graph is created as a DRAFT and returns a graph with an id, which is helpful. However, it does not mention any prerequisites, permissions, or potential side effects beyond creation.
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?
Two short sentences that convey the core action, the draft status, the template source, and the follow-up action. No wasted words.
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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, yet the description covers only the template source and the returned id. It omits the role of botId and the optional name, leaving the tool insufficiently specified for a confident invocation.
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 has 3 parameters with no descriptions, and the description only hints at templateId via 'из шаблона'. botId and name are left unexplained, so the description does not compensate for the 0% schema coverage.
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 a specific verb ('Создать' = create) and identifies the resource ('граф из шаблона') and the draft status. This clearly distinguishes it from other graph creation tools like create_graph or clone_graph, which are siblings.
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?
It tells the user to see list_templates to know available templates, and instructs to edit further via update_graph. This implies a workflow but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over create_graph or clone_graph, so guidance is present but not comprehensive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.