Add an element or nested subtree under a parent. Build a full section in one call by passing children.
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 | ||
| force | No | Override a render-inference guard; reported as forced | |
| index | No | ||
| dry_run | No | ||
| parent_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.63.0Input schema / properties / forceAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Override a render-inference guard; reported as forced",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only provide read/destructive hints, so the description carries additional weight. It usefully discloses that nested subtrees are supported and that one call can create a whole section. However, it does not describe return behavior, side effects of force/dry_run, or ordering semantics.
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 purposeful, front-loaded sentences: the first states the core action, the second reinforces the critical nesting behavior. There is no filler or repetition.
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 a nested spec, five parameters, and no output schema, yet the description covers the main required usage pattern well. Gaps remain around optional parameters like dry_run and index, and the description does not explain what the call returns or how errors/side effects behave.
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 low (only 'force' has a description), so the description must compensate partially. It adds meaning by clarifying that 'parent_id' is the parent target and that 'children' builds a nested subtree in one call. It leaves index, dry_run, and most spec fields without added semantic explanation.
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 clearly names the action ('Add'), the target ('under a parent'), and the key differentiator ('whole NESTED subtree', 'complete section'). It is specific enough to be understood, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like sb_set or sb_duplicate.
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?
The description provides concrete usage guidance: use one call to add an element or build a complete section by passing children rather than calling per node. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative-tool routing, so it stops 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.