add_do_once_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and provides meaningful detail: one-time execution, ignored subsequent calls, and Reset input behavior. It does not disclose prerequisites like whether the blueprint must already exist or failure modes, but the core behavioral nuance is clearly covered.

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 behavior is front-loaded in the first two lines, followed by a compact Args block, a KB pointer, and a concrete example. No sentence is wasted.

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 simple two-parameter operation with an output schema, the description gives the essential behavior, parameter semantics, and an example. It could add a note on prerequisites or how this differs from the sibling add_blueprint_do_once_node, but nothing critical is missing for basic invocation.

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%, yet the description adds real meaning: blueprint_name is the target Blueprint and node_position is an optional [X, Y] graph position. The example reinforces the expected blueprint_name format, which compensates for the sparse schema.

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?

States a clear verb+resource ('Add a Do Once node') and explains the core behavior: it executes exactly once and ignores subsequent calls until Reset. It does not differentiate from the sibling add_blueprint_do_once_node, so it falls 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 execution-once/reset semantics imply when the node is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives such as add_gate_node or add_blueprint_do_once_node. The use case must be inferred from the behavior rather than stated.

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