add_broadcast_node

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

Annotations declare non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the mutation profile is already known. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the tool does not compile, it requires a prior add_event_dispatcher + compile_blueprint sequence, and it resolves the dispatcher on the skeleton class so inherited dispatchers work. The PIE-refusal safety detail lives in the schema (force param), not the description, so it isn't double-counted here.

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 action, then prerequisites, then alternatives, then return shape. It is dense but each clause carries distinct information; the parenthetical return-shape sentence is slightly heavy but earns its place given no output schema exists.

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 an 8-parameter Blueprint-graph mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return shape ({node_id, class, title, pins, ...}), the ordering prerequisites, and the alternative tools — everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema carries the baseline. The description still adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that there is one input pin per signature parameter and that an empty parameter list means the dispatcher has no signature yet, which clarifies what dispatcher_name resolves to in practice.

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 and resource ('Add the node that BROADCASTS (fires) an event dispatcher on self') and immediately scopes it as own-or-inherited with one input pin per signature parameter. It also names the sibling it is not ('Does NOT compile') and the opposite-direction tools (add_graph_node node_type="add_delegate", add_object_bound_event), so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit prerequisites are given (the dispatcher must already exist via add_event_dispatcher then compile_blueprint; parameter pins only appear after set_event_dispatcher_signature) and the alternative tooling for the LISTENING direction is named with its conditions. This is textbook when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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