add_arithmetic_operator_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool modifies a Blueprint graph by adding a node and notes one constraint (Modulo is integers only), but it does not mention side effects, prerequisites such as the target Blueprint existing or being loaded, whether the graph is compiled or saved, or failure behavior. The 'Power' omission from the opening list also creates ambiguity about the actual behavioral surface.

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 core action and uses bullet lists, an Args block, a KB reference, and an example in a scannable structure. It is slightly redundant: the opening parenthetical duplicates the operator list in Args, and the Ch.2 section restates operator meanings. Overall, each section serves a purpose, but trimming redundancy would tighten it.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the key inputs, provides valid value sets, and includes an example; the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., the Blueprint must exist) and post-conditions (e.g., whether the node needs connection or compilation), and the Power/Modulo listing discrepancy leaves a small open question. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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, and it largely does. It defines blueprint_name, lists valid operator and operand_type values, and explains node_position as an optional [X, Y] graph position. It even provides a concrete example call. Minor gaps remain around node_position coordinate conventions and exact blueprint asset path formatting, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

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, 'Add an arithmetic operator node', and enumerates the supported operators (Add, Subtract, Multiply, Divide, Modulo) and operand types. This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from other node types, though it never names sibling tools explicitly. A minor inconsistency exists: the opening list omits 'Power' while the Args section includes it, which slightly muddies the exact supported set.

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 provides background ('Arithmetic operators create expressions in Blueprints') and an example call, but it does not state when to use this tool versus closely related siblings like add_math_node, add_relational_operator_node, or add_logical_operator_node. No exclusions, alternatives, or selection criteria are provided, so an agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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