add_reroute_node

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false but destructiveHint=false, and the description corroborates this by stating the node changes no behaviour and does not compile. That 'does not compile' disclosure is real added value, since it tells the agent a follow-up compile step is not produced. It stops short of describing persistence/auth implications, though the PIE refusal risk is thoroughly covered by the schema's force parameter.

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 essential purpose in the first clause, then a short caveat, then a compact Returns line. Every element is useful, though the get_graph_nodes detour is a slight tangent from the tool's own invocation and could be trimmed without loss.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description supplies the return shape ({ node_id, class, title, pins, blueprint_name, graph_name }) including the useful note that pins stay wildcard until wired. Combined with the schema's treatment of the PIE refusal and positioning parameters, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 all seven parameters (blueprint_name, graph_name, node_position, position_x/y, blueprint_path alias, force) are already documented in the schema, including the blueprint_name/blueprint_path alias mapping and the node_position precedence rule. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the 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?

Names a specific verb and resource (add a reroute/knot node) and immediately characterizes it as 'pure layout' that 're-emits whatever is wired into it and changes no behaviour' and 'Does NOT compile' — which separates it from the many sibling graph-node adders like add_graph_node, add_branch_node, and add_comment_node. An agent can tell what this node type is without opening the 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?

Gives clear operational context: it tells the agent that a chain appearing broken in get_graph_nodes with compact=true may simply route through a knot, and that re-reading with exclude_classes=[] resolves it. That is genuine when-to-use guidance, but it never explicitly contrasts this tool with sibling node-adders such as add_graph_node, leaving the primary alternative to inference.

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