add_draw_debug_line_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the node draws a line and is added to a blueprint, but does not mention side effects like modifying the blueprint graph, requiring an existing blueprint, or potential compilation. It also does not describe return values, though an output schema exists. The description is not contradictory but lacks depth on behavioral consequences.

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-structured with a purpose statement, contextual note about traces, an Args list, a KB link, and an example. It is efficient but includes the Ch.14 reference and extra explanation about debug lines that could be trimmed without losing essential information. The front-loading of purpose and parameter details is good.

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, parameters, and provides an example and a knowledge base reference. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., blueprint must exist) or error cases, but for a simple node-adding operation with an output schema present, it is fairly complete. The absence of behavioral details is a minor gap, but the essential information for calling the tool is present.

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 compensate. It provides an 'Args' section with explanations for all four parameters: blueprint_name (just 'Blueprint name', which adds little over schema), but duration ('How long the line persists (0 = one frame)'), color ('[R, G, B, A] 0-255 color'), and node_position ('Optional [X, Y] graph position') add meaningful semantics that are not in the schema. This is critical for correct invocation.

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 clearly states the tool adds a 'Draw Debug Line' node that draws a 3D line in the viewport for debugging. It explicitly contrasts with trace functions that have a Draw Debug Type option, distinguishing it from similar trace-related tools. The verb 'Add' and resource 'Draw Debug Line node' are specific and unambiguous.

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 context on when to use the tool: 'Debug lines are useful to find problems when traces aren't acting as expected.' It also contrasts with trace functions, implying this is for custom debug visualization. However, it does not explicitly exclude other debug draw node types like sphere or point nodes, which are present in the sibling list, so exclusions are not comprehensive.

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