add_sequence_node

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

Annotations already flag this as a non-idempotent write, and the description goes further by disclosing the compile side effect (the 'AND compile the Blueprint' clause) and the exact pin set produced. It doesn't itself mention the PIE-refusal/permission risk that the `force` schema parameter documents, so it isn't fully self-contained on behavioral risk.

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?

Two tight sentences front-load the operation and its key constraint, then a compact returns line. No filler; every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 compensates by enumerating the return shape (node_id, class, title, pins, blueprint_name, graph_name), and it flags the compile side effect and the alternative tool. Complete enough to call correctly, though it defers the PIE/permission caveat entirely to the schema.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents every parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a tangential note that there is no parameter to add more pins, which is useful context but not parameter semantics per se.

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 a Sequence node) plus its defining behavior (fires outputs in order, spawned with the default two 'Then 0'/'Then 1' pins) and the embedded compile step. The agent can distinguish it from the many other add_*_node siblings, especially add_graph_node, without reading 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?

Explicitly names the alternative (add_graph_node node_type="sequence") and the condition that selects it ('prefer that inside a build_blueprint_graph batch'), which is the exact when/when-not routing an agent needs.

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