add_custom_macro

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Add' clearly implies mutation, but the description does not disclose key traits such as overwrite behavior on existing macro names, whether the blueprint must already exist, whether the result is auto-compiled, or side effects on the graph. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 statement, concept explanation, args list, KB reference, and a concrete example. The purpose is front-loaded and the example demonstrates usage. The macro explanation adds useful context without being overly verbose, though the example could show the optional inputs/outputs.

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 output schema exists so return values are covered. The description covers purpose, concept, args, KB reference, and example. Missing behavioral details for a mutation tool: conflict handling for existing macro names, prerequisite that the blueprint exists, and post-add compilation behavior.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does list all four parameters with brief meanings (blueprint_name, macro_name, inputs, outputs). However, 'Input tunnel parameters' and 'Output tunnel parameters' remain vague about their structure, and the schema shows arrays of objects with string additionalProperties, so the format is not adequately clarified.

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 specific verb and resource ('Add a custom Macro to a Blueprint') and explains what macros are versus functions, which helps differentiate it from siblings like add_custom_function. However, the differentiation is implicit through the concept explanation rather than naming an explicit alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 macro-versus-function explanation implies when this tool is appropriate (when latent nodes or multiple exec outputs are needed, and scope is within a single Blueprint), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Usage context is present but left to inference.

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