add_design_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether this mutates persisted state, whether duplicate node names are allowed, what identifiers are returned, or how the new node relates to the existing tree — all critical for a write operation with zero annotation coverage.

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?

The purpose sentence is front-loaded and the kind list is compact and scannable. It is appropriately sized for the information conveyed, with no obvious filler.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description should disclose the node lifecycle, persistence, and return behavior. It supplies only the kind vocabulary, leaving most operational questions unanswered.

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% and the kind parameter has no enum, so the description's enumerated kind values (concept/tech/design/requirement/risk) genuinely add meaning beyond the schema. However, it leaves 'name' and 'note' semantics (and whether note is free text or markup) entirely undocumented.

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+resource ('add a node') scoped to the design tree / bidirectional graph, which lets an agent distinguish it from the sibling add_design_relation. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast itself with any sibling, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance; the agent must infer from the tool name and the presence of siblings like add_design_relation and get_design_tree. The kind list hints at intended usage but does not state conditions or alternatives.

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