add_apply_damage_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Add' a node, which implies a mutation, but it does not mention whether the blueprint is modified in place, whether the graph must be open, whether compilation or saving is required, or what side effects occur. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a compact args section, KB pointer, and example. It avoids unnecessary filler. It could be improved slightly by folding the KB link into a more informative sentence, but the structure is efficient for a 2-parameter tool.

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?

Given that there are no annotations and the schema has 0% parameter description coverage, the description leaves important gaps: it does not explain how to specify node_position, whether the blueprint must already exist, what graph context is assumed, or what the operation changes. An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, but the missing parameter and behavioral context makes the definition incomplete.

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 fully document the parameters. It only says 'blueprint_name: Blueprint name' and 'node_position: Optional graph position', which adds little beyond the schema. The example gives a blueprint path, but node_position format, coordinate order, units, and behavior when omitted are not explained.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Add an "Apply Damage" node.' It is more than a tautology because it names the exact node type and is distinguishable from nearby siblings like add_apply_point_damage_node. However, it does not elaborate on what the node does or how it differs from similar damage-related nodes beyond the name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_apply_point_damage_node or other add_*_node tools. The example and KB link show how to call it, but the description does not state prerequisites, selection criteria, or 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.