add_bt_task_child

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true, openWorld=false), but the description adds real depth beyond them: append/execution-order semantics, that ParentNode and ExecutionIndex are runtime-assigned so the agent should not set them, the scope of idempotency ('by child_name within the parent'), and the persisted outcome via saved/save_error. It does not discuss failure modes for a bad parent_name or whether the asset must be saved separately.

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 action, with three tight sentences of semantics followed by a Returns block. The Returns enumeration is verbose but justified because no output schema exists; nothing is truly wasted, though it could be trimmed slightly.

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 output schema, the description covers the mutation semantics, runtime-assigned fields, idempotency scope, and the return contract. Remaining gaps are minor: persistence/saving expectations and explicit relationship to remove_bt_task_child and add_bt_composite_child are not stated.

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 already explains child_name defaults, parent_name 'Root'/omitted behavior, the accepted task_class values, and the RootNode prerequisite. The description repeats the task-type list but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+scope: 'Add a leaf task node ... under a BehaviorTree composite,' and enumerates the concrete task types (Wait/MoveTo/PlaySound/RunBehavior). The word 'leaf' and 'under a composite' implicitly separates it from sibling add_bt_composite_child without needing to name it.

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?

Gives clear operating context: the task is appended to the parent's Children with array order = execution order, and the prerequisite that the asset's RootNode must already be set (via set_behavior_tree_root) appears in the schema. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over add_bt_composite_child or what to do for non-leaf nodes, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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