add_clamp_node

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

With no annotations, the description makes the mutation explicit ('Add a Clamp node') and discloses the optional graph-position placement. It doesn't mention non-behaviors like auto-connecting or compiling, but nothing hidden or surprising remains for a node-creation operation.

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 compact and each section earns its place: purpose, usage context, parameter meanings, KB pointer, and a concrete example. It is front-loaded and scannable.

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?

An agent has everything needed to call it correctly: all parameter semantics, a required path format example, and a KB reference. An output schema exists, so return-value details don't need to be in the description.

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?

Every parameter gets a plain-language explanation in the Args block, including the allowed operand_type values and the optional [X,Y] node_position. Since schema descriptions are absent, this fully compensates and adds real meaning.

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 names the exact node ('Clamp'), the action (add/constrain), and the domain (value range clamping). This separates it from sibling add_* node tools even before opening the schema.

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?

It gives concrete use context (clamp health/stamina/ammo between min and max) and a chapter reference, which tells an agent when this tool is relevant. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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