Add an element or a nested subtree under a parent, passing children in one call to build a complete section without per-node calls.
Add an element — or a whole NESTED subtree — under a parent. One call builds a complete section: pass children rather than calling this once per node.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| spec | Yes | ||
| index | No | ||
| dry_run | No | ||
| parent_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark it as a mutating but non-destructive operation; the description adds behavioral context beyond that by disclosing that one call can build a whole nested subtree. It does not cover edge behavior such as insertion index or dry-run semantics, but those are less central.
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 tightly written sentences; the primary action is front-loaded and the second sentence earns its place by conveying the efficient batching behavior. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.
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?
For a tool with four parameters, a nested spec object, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, this description is not enough to invoke it correctly. The agent still lacks semantics for dry_run, index, and the required spec.type values.
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%, so the burden is on the description. It only clarifies parent_id ('under a parent') and spec.children ('pass children'), while index, dry_run, and the meanings of spec.type/name/style/config/specials remain unexplained.
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 states a specific operation — adding an element or nested subtree under a parent — with the verb 'Add' and the target resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like sb_set/sb_move by focusing on creation under a parent, and the nested/subtree mention is a unique selling point.
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 clear guidance on when to use the tool: pass children in one call rather than calling once per node, so the agent knows how to build a full section. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it falls just short of full guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.