add_destroy_actor_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Add a Destroy Actor node' without stating that this mutates the blueprint graph, potential side effects (e.g., graph dirty state), error conditions, or any requirements for the blueprint.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by arguments, a KB pointer, and an example. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, but the structure could be slightly clearer if the optional status of node_position was more explicit.

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 2 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that isn't described, the description is too sparse. It omits preconditions (blueprint exists/loaded), what the tool returns, and any behavioral notes. The KB link offers general guidance but not tool-specific completeness.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It merely restates the parameter names ('blueprint_name: Blueprint name', 'node_position: Optional graph position') with minimal added value. It doesn't specify the expected format for node_position (e.g., x,y coordinates) or clarify how blueprint_name should be resolved, though the example gives one valid value.

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 ('Add') and a specific resource ('Destroy Actor' node), which clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from the many other add_*_node siblings. However, it doesn't elaborate on what the node itself does, though the name implies destruction of an actor.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool compared to other node-adding tools, no mention of prerequisites like an existing or loaded blueprint, and no alternatives are noted. The example only shows invocation, not selection criteria.

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