add_does_save_game_exist_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states the node's purpose but does not disclose side effects such as whether the blueprint must be open, whether the graph is modified persistently, if compilation is needed, or error behavior on invalid blueprint names. The mutation aspect is implied but not elaborated.

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 and front-loaded. It opens with the purpose, then gives usage context, a bulleted args list, a KB reference, and a concrete example. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 covers purpose, usage, all parameters, an example, and a knowledge-base link. Since an output schema is present, not describing return values is acceptable. It lacks discussion of failure modes or prerequisites, but for a simple add-node tool the information provided is nearly 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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), so the description must explain all parameters. It does so clearly: blueprint_name, slot_name, user_index, and node_position with a type hint '[X, Y] graph position.' The example demonstrates a real value for blueprint_name. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 exactly what the tool does: 'Add a DoesSaveGameExist node to check if a save file is present.' The verb 'Add' plus the specific node type set it apart from sibling add-node tools, which are all clearly different node types.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'used before loading to branch logic - if save exists, load it; if not, use defaults.' This clearly implies when to use it. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling set makes it evident this is the only save-existence node tool.

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