neurover_add_node

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely new behavioral information beyond that: the tile is placed without launching, and the tool mutates the canvas, which justifies the "ask first" rule. It stops short of saying what the call returns (e.g. a new node id) or what happens if workflowId is invalid.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then the guardrail, then the alternative. Every clause carries decision-relevant information and none is redundant.

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 six parameters, a nested position object, no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the definition is only partially sufficient: it clarifies purpose and trigger but leaves the agent guessing how to populate workflowId, position and modelId. Adequate for routing, thin for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across six parameters, so the description must carry the load and largely does not. Only the type dimension is hinted at ("генерации или текста"), while the required workflowId, the nested position object, modelId and account are never explained; the enum's video/audio values are not even implied by the wording.

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 verb and resource ("Добавить ... плитку генерации или текста") and pins the scope with "на полотно" plus "без запуска", so the agent knows this creates a canvas tile without starting any generation. It explicitly separates itself from prepare_generation, which is the nearest competing action.

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 gives both a positive trigger (only on a direct user request about tiles or the canvas) and an exclusion (ordinary generation goes to prepare_generation via the canvas chat). Nothing is left for the agent to infer about when this tool is the right choice.

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