add_capsule_trace_by_channel_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool adds a node and mentions the performance cost of capsule traces. However, it does not disclose side effects such as whether the blueprint is modified/persisted, whether the graph needs compilation, or whether other nodes are reconnected.

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 organized: purpose, rationale, args, KB reference, and example. It is front-loaded with the core function, and every section contributes actionable information without unnecessary verbosity.

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 node-addition tool this is largely complete: it names all required concepts, provides defaults via schema, gives an example, and links to knowledge base context. The main gap is the absence of explicit values for draw_debug, and it does not mention prerequisites like an existing blueprint graph.

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 adds useful semantics for trace_channel ('Visibility' or 'Camera') and node_position ('Optional [X, Y] graph position'), and the example illustrates blueprint_name format. However, draw_debug remains vague as 'Debug visualization type', with no valid values explained.

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 clear action and resource: 'Add a Capsule Trace By Channel node'. It further distinguishes itself from LineTrace by explaining the capsule volume and character-sized sweep use case, making the tool's purpose specific rather than a tautology.

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 concrete usage context: capsule trace is 'more expensive than LineTrace' but covers a volume, and is 'useful for character-sized sweeps'. This implies when to prefer it over LineTrace, though it does not explicitly address alternatives like SphereTrace or BoxTrace.

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