add_blueprint_get_self_component_reference

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the core side effect (adding a node), the default graph, and the return dictionary keys, but it omits edge-case behavior such as missing components/graphs, whether the asset is modified immediately, and how node_position defaults are handled.

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 purpose, equivalent action, Args, Returns, KB reference, and an example. Every section adds value, and the main action is front-loaded before the parameter details.

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 node-adding tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description covers the required invocations well: all parameters are explained, defaults are noted, and the return shape is given. It could be more complete by noting prerequisites (e.g., the component must already exist in the Blueprint) and by pointing to sibling tools for adjacent operations.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: blueprint_name as asset name (with full-path example), component_name as component variable name, graph_name with default, and node_position as optional [X, Y] canvas position. The example also disambiguates the expected path format.

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 ('Add a node that gets a reference to one of the Blueprint's own components') and an analogy ('Equivalent to dragging a component from the Components panel into the graph'). This clearly differentiates it from related siblings like add_blueprint_self_reference or add_blueprint_get_component_node.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as add_blueprint_get_component_node or add_blueprint_self_reference. The 'Equivalent to dragging...' analogy provides context for what it does, but not a decision rule for choosing it over alternatives.

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