add_box_trace_by_channel_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the disclosure burden. It clearly states the tool 'Add[s]' a node and describes the trace behavior, which is good, but it does not mention side effects such as graph mutation/compilation needs, failure cases, or valid draw_debug values. Given the mutation and zero annotations, this is a partial disclosure.

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 organized and front-loaded with the node type, then follows with a short technical line, an arg list, a KB pointer, and a minimal example. Every section earns its place, though the arg list and example make it longer than the terse ideal.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the action, all parameters, and an example, and an output schema exists so return values can be assumed. However, it does not say which Blueprint graph receives the node or enumerate draw_debug options, leaving some ambiguity for correct invocation.

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 Args block documents all five parameters, including units for half_size, the allowed trace_channel values, and node_position optionality. The only weakness is draw_debug, which is merely called 'Debug visualization type' without enumerating valid values.

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 names the exact action ('Add a ... node') and resource, and the phrase 'box-shaped sweep trace' pinpoints the geometry among sibling trace tools. It is immediately clear what the tool does and how it differs from line/sphere/capsule trace adders.

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 when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives such as add_line_trace_by_channel_node or add_sphere_trace_by_channel_node. The 'box-shaped' phrasing implies the shape choice, and the KB link could supply context, but the decision rule is left to the agent.

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