add_component_overlap_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it delivers: it states the idempotency behavior (if node exists it is returned unchanged with already_existed=True), documents the return dict structure, and lists valid event_name options with defaults. There are no contradictions with annotations since none exist.

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 longer than average but well-organized with a front-loaded first paragraph stating the core purpose, followed by clear Args and Returns sections, a KB reference, and a concrete example. Every section earns its place; it is verbose only because it carries the full burden with no annotations and 0% schema coverage.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and an empty schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers idempotency, return format, valid parameter values, prerequisites (get_scs_nodes check), a KB pointer, and a worked example. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is 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%, so the description must fully compensate, and it does. Every parameter is explained: blueprint_name (with example), component_name, event_name (with all valid values and the default), graph_name (with default), and node_position (with format). This is a complete semantic explanation of all five arguments.

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 a specific verb (Add) and resource (K2Node_ComponentBoundEvent for a specific SCS component), and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling add_overlap_event by noting the actor-level vs per-component-GUID distinction. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does and how it differs from its closest sibling without opening any schemas.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool (per-component scoping) and when not to (vs add_overlap_event for actor-level events). It also gives a concrete prerequisite workflow: 'Use get_scs_nodes first to confirm component_name and check that supports_overlap_events is True.' This is exactly the kind of routing and precondition guidance an agent needs.

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