add_blueprint_flip_flop_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the alternating behavior and the pins, but does not mention side effects on the graph, whether the operation is additive, or potential errors if the blueprint or graph doesn't exist. It is a mutating operation with no stated preconditions.

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 relatively concise, with a summary, pin list, parameter list, returns, and an example. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and alternation behavior. The example is useful, though the KB reference may be extraneous for the core task.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown in text, but indicated), so return values are covered elsewhere. The description includes enough information for an agent to understand what the tool does, the parameters, and an example. However, it lacks details on error handling or prerequisites like blueprint existence.

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%, but the description briefly explains the purpose of each parameter (blueprint_name as asset name, graph_name as graph to add to, node_position as canvas position) and provides an example for blueprint_name. This adds meaning 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 clearly states the tool adds a FlipFlop macro node to a Blueprint graph, describing its alternating behavior between A and B exec outputs on each trigger and listing the pins. It distinguishes from other add_*_node tools by its explicit function and pin list.

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 explains when to use the tool (to add a FlipFlop node) and provides a concrete example with a blueprint_name. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context of adding a specific macro node is clear given the sibling list.

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