add_make_struct_node

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior beyond the schema: it does NOT compile, and creation is followed by a reconstruction step that refreshes per-member pins. It stops short of stating permission/preconditions, but the added behavioral context is substantive.

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 and the pin behavior, then alternatives, inverse, and a Returns block. Dense but every sentence carries information; the parenthetical about Blueprint-defined structs and the Returns block are the only slightly heavy spots.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape (node_id, pins one-per-member plus struct output, blueprint_name, graph_name, struct_type), which is exactly what an agent needs to chain into set_pin_default_value/connect_pins. Combined with sibling routing and the no-compile note, nothing essential is missing.

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 documents all 7 parameters (including the blueprint_path/blueprint_name alias nuance and node_position precedence). The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb + resource ("Create a Make Struct node") plus the defining behavioral trait (one input pin per editable member, Blueprint-defined structs included). It explicitly distinguishes itself from add_graph_node node_type="make_struct" and names its inverse add_break_struct_node, so an agent can place it precisely among siblings.

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?

States the downstream workflow (fill via set_pin_default_value / connect_pins without a follow-up read), names the alternative (add_graph_node node_type="make_struct") and why this variant exists (reconstructed so per-member pins are refreshed), and names the inverse (add_break_struct_node). When-to-use and alternatives are both explicit.

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