add_clear_blackboard_value_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the node resets values to their default (false/null/zero), which is a key behavioral trait. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like clearing a key that doesn't exist or requiring a specific blackboard setup. Still, the core behavior is clear.

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 concise, using a short paragraph and bullet-like args. It front-loads the tool's purpose and provides an example. Minor redundancy with the KB reference, but overall no waste.

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?

Given the tool is a simple node addition with 3 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, parameters, and an example. It lacks details on edge cases or failure modes, but for its simplicity, it is sufficient.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description lists each parameter with its role: blueprint_name, key_name, and node_position (optional). It explains key_name as the blackboard key to clear and node_position as optional graph position. This adds enough meaning beyond the bare schema names, justifying a score above baseline.

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 clearly states the tool adds a 'Clear Blackboard Value' node and explains its purpose: reset blackboard keys like HasHeardSound after investigation. It distinguishes from siblings by naming the specific BT task class and the action of clearing a value, which is unique among the many 'add_*' tools.

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 provides context by referencing Ch.10 and a knowledge base section for when this node is used (after investigation is complete), though it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it. The KB reference helps, but explicit when-not guidance would improve it.

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