add_clear_timer_node

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the full burden. It explains the purpose and that it adds a node, but it does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., blueprint must exist), side effects on the graph, or what the tool returns. The use of 'Clear vs Clear and Invalidate' is also ambiguous without further detail.

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-structured and efficient. It leads with the core action, provides a usage example, lists arguments clearly, and includes a knowledge base reference. There is no redundancy, and each sentence earns its place.

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 gives a usage example and a KB reference but lacks important context such as prerequisites, what the output schema contains, how the node integrates with existing timer handles, and whether the blueprint is automatically compiled or saved. Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of sibling timer tools, this is adequate but not complete.

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 lists the two parameters with simple one-line explanations: blueprint_name (Blueprint name) and node_position (Optional [X, Y] graph position). This adds basic meaning beyond the schema, but it does not explain constraints, formats, or how the 'Clear' vs 'Clear and Invalidate' variant is selected, leaving some semantics uncovered.

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 action ('Add a Clear Timer By Handle or Clear and Invalidate Timer By Handle node') and the resource (a blueprint node). It also gives a concrete usage example and distinguishes itself from timer-setting siblings like add_set_timer_by_function_name_node by focusing on clearing timers.

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 explicitly indicates when to use the tool ('Used to stop a running timer, e.g., stop stamina drain when sprinting ends') and provides an example. However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, though the context is clear enough.

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