add_bt_blackboard_decorator

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose the core runtime behavior ('checks a key's value to allow or abort execution') and that it adds a decorator node. However, it omits prerequisites such as existing behavior tree/blackboard assets, whether the asset is saved/modified, and error behavior.

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 summary is front-loaded and the Args/KB/example layout is scannable. The example is poorly constructed, using 'ExampleName' for blackboard_key and duplicating it for sequence_name, which could mislead an agent. It is not bloated, but the weak example and minor 'Ch.10' reference keep it from a higher score.

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?

The description covers what the tool does, all parameters, a KB reference, and a call example. It omits practical setup context: whether the behavior tree and blackboard must already exist, whether the blackboard key must be defined, and how adding this decorator interacts with existing decorators. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but prerequisite and side-effect information is still missing.

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 section compensates by defining all five parameters. It provides concrete example values for blackboard_key and allowed values for observer_aborts. It doesn't explain the semantics of each observer_aborts option, but the parameter coverage is strong.

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?

States a specific verb ('Add'), resource ('Blackboard Decorator'), and target ('Behavior Tree sequence/task node'). The description further clarifies what a Blackboard Decorator does by explaining it checks a key's value. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like create_bt_decorator or add_bt_node, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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 conceptual statement 'Decorators are conditions that control whether a BT branch can execute' gives clear context for when this tool is relevant. It does not name alternative tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the Blackboard-specific explanation makes the intended scenario evident.

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