add_blueprint_switch_on_int_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the graph mutation and node behavior, and lists return keys, which is useful. It does not disclose side effects such as duplication behavior, asset save/compile implications, or failure modes when adding to an invalid graph.

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 structure is efficient: purpose, behavior, args, returns, KB reference, and example all in a compact format. There is slight redundancy between the opening sentence and the routing-behavior sentence, but no filler or irrelevant detail.

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 3-parameter node-creation tool with an output schema, the description covers inputs, defaults, return fields, and a runnable example. The main gaps are the lack of disambiguation from add_switch_on_int_node and missing side-effect/safety caveats, but it is otherwise complete enough for an agent to call correctly.

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 explains all three parameters meaningfully: blueprint asset name, target graph with default, and optional [X, Y] canvas position. It also provides an example asset path, though it does not fully specify path-vs-name requirements.

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, and target: 'Add a Switch on Int node (K2Node_SwitchInteger) to a Blueprint graph.' It also explains the node's routing behavior. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the very similar sibling tool add_switch_on_int_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 usage context is implied: use this when you need a Switch on Int node in a Blueprint graph, supported by a default graph name and example. It does not state when not to use it, nor does it mention alternatives among the many blueprint node-add tools.

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