add_blueprint_self_reference

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the operation ('add a node') and the return value, but it does not mention side effects like asset mutation persistence, the need to save/compile afterward, or prerequisites such as the blueprint existing. This is a meaningful 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 tightly organized: purpose sentence, args list, return type, KB link, and example. Every line earns its place, and the most important action is front-loaded.

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 low-complexity tool with an output schema, the description covers parameters, return, and includes an example plus KB reference. Yet it omits usage context and behavioral caveats (persistence, prerequisites), which are needed because there are no annotations and sibling differentiation is absent.

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. It gives one-line semantic explanations for all three parameters, including defaults and format ('Optional [X, Y] canvas position'). However, 'Asset name' for blueprint_name is terse and ambiguous until seen in the example, so the compensation is adequate but not rich.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and names a concrete resource ('Get a reference to self' node) with a clarifying parenthetical about what the node returns. It does not explicitly mention sibling tools, so it is clear but not strongly differentiated from the many add_blueprint_* sibling 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_blueprint_get_self_component_reference or add_get_owner_node. The description simply states what it does, leaving the selection decision to the agent without contextual hints.

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