add_abs_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Add' implies graph mutation, but the description does not state that the blueprint asset is modified, whether saving/compiling is needed, whether duplicate nodes are created, or what the tool actually returns. The line 'Returns the absolute... value' refers to the node's runtime behavior, not the tool's response, which could confuse an agent.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: a one-line definition, a brief behavior note, a use case, compact argument descriptions, a KB reference, and a practical example. Every section earns its place without excessive verbosity.

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 node-adding tool, the description provides the essential call information, an example, and a KB link. The presence of an output schema covers return-value specifics. It falls short only in not disclosing side effects or node-connection behavior, which matters for Blueprint graph mutation tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so meaningfully by documenting operand_type values ('Float' or 'Integer'), noting node_position is an optional [X, Y] graph position, and providing a concrete blueprint_name example. The main gap is that blueprint_name's exact asset-path requirements are only implied by the example.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb-resource pair, 'Add an Abs (Absolute Value) node,' and distinguishes this from the many sibling add_*_node tools by naming the exact node type. The explanatory sentence about absolute value reinforces the tool's purpose without ambiguity.

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 gives a clear use case ('Useful for computing distances and speeds without sign'), so an agent can infer when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with alternatives such as add_math_node or add_blueprint_function_node, nor does it state when not to use it.

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