add_pcg_node

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-idempotent write that is not read-only, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing genuinely useful mechanics: settings are created in the transient package, the node is reparented into the graph, the operation is headless-safe, and the graph is re-saved afterward. That is real value beyond the structured fields.

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 description is front-loaded with the action, then mechanism, then return shape. The inline Returns block is justified because no output schema exists. Slightly dense, but every sentence carries information.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the mutation semantics, headless-safe note, and the complete return field list. It lacks only guidance on selecting node_type values and error conditions, which is a minor gap.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents node_type and pcg_graph_path fully, including example values. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Adds a node of the given UPCGSettings subclass to a PCG graph') and names the exact API used. This distinguishes it from siblings like add_pcg_subgraph_node, add_pcg_component, and connect_pcg_nodes without needing to open a 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?

The description implies the tool's role in building a PCG graph, but never states when to use it versus add_pcg_subgraph_node or connect_pcg_nodes, nor any prerequisite such as requiring a valid existing graph asset. Usage is inferable only.

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