Node kinds and fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real operational prerequisite — "Needs hive running" — which is behavioral context the annotations do not carry. It does not describe response size or caching, so not a 5.

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 the core subject ("Every node kind hive supports") followed by a dense but purposeful enumeration of contents, then the usage note and prerequisite. It is a single long sentence, which is heavy, but nearly every clause carries distinct information.

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 must convey what is returned, and it does so thoroughly — kinds, their metadata, kind-specific data fields, and the enumerated allowed values. An agent knows what it will get and when it needs to call this.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing to disambiguate, and the description correctly spends no words on parameter semantics.

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 names a specific resource (every node kind hive supports) and enumerates exactly what each entry contains — description, default width, Markdown body flag, kind-specific data fields — plus the allowed-value vocabularies and Markdown syntax. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_nodes or get_nodes, which return node instances rather than kind definitions.

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?

"Call before creating anything other than plain notes" gives an explicit trigger condition and implicitly excludes plain-note creation, which is genuinely useful routing guidance. It does not name the alternative tool (create_nodes) by name, so it falls short of a 5.

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