add_blueprint_gate_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly communicates that this is a mutating add operation, describes the Gate's runtime behavior and pin layout, and lists the return keys. It does not disclose preconditions such as whether the Blueprint or graph must already exist, or whether the asset needs saving afterward.

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 with clear sections for behavior, args, returns, knowledge base reference, and an example. The one-line purpose is front-loaded, and every section adds operational value with no filler.

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 tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description is largely complete: action, parameter semantics, defaults, return shape, and an example are all covered. The remaining gaps are the lack of sibling-routing guidance and explicit preconditions about the target Blueprint and graph.

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 explain each parameter. It does so for all four: blueprint_name as the asset name, graph_name with its default, start_closed with its meaning, and node_position as an optional [X, Y] canvas position. It stops short of 5 by not clarifying valid graph names or position units.

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 opening line states a specific verb and resource: 'Add a Gate macro node to a Blueprint graph.' The Gate execution semantics and pin list further pin down exactly what kind of node this is, distinguishing it from generic add_macro_node or add_gate_node tools.

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 Gate behavior ('passes execution through its Exit pin only when open') implies when this tool is useful, and the example shows a concrete call. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over related siblings like add_gate_node or add_macro_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.