Create nodes

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

Goes well past the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false): it discloses that the whole batch is a single undoable step, that nodes inherit the Q-menu defaults, that placement never overlaps existing nodes, and that name collisions get a numeric suffix. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent would otherwise have to discover by trial.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then placement rules, then ref linking, then return values. Every sentence carries information, though the middle is dense and could be broken into clearer clauses.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly states what is returned (final ids, names, positions) and covers the mutation's reversibility and default behaviors. It omits practical limits (the 200-node cap in the schema) and any permission/auth requirements, which are minor gaps for a creation tool.

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 coverage is only 60%, but the description compensates by explaining the placement precedence order, that origin defaults to the centre of the visible area, and how ref enables intra-call linking (with a mind-map example). It adds real meaning beyond the schema for the placement parameters, though it is silent on gap/layout interactions.

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 (Create) and resource (nodes of any kind), plus the batch+link scope in one undoable step. This distinguishes it clearly from update_nodes, delete_nodes and create_links, which an agent can rule out without opening a schema.

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 guidance is strong at the parameter level (placement precedence: explicit x/y → near → origin/layout, and ref-based linking within the call), but it never says when to prefer this tool over siblings such as create_links, import_file, or a create-then-arrange sequence. Context is implied rather than stated.

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