add_draw_debug_sphere_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the node's purpose and parameter effects (duration 0 = one frame), but doesn't disclose side effects like whether the node is added to the currently open blueprint graph, whether it requires a specific graph context, or what happens if the blueprint doesn't exist. The mutation behavior (adding a node) is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 tool's purpose, followed by a clear parameter list and a helpful example. The KB reference is a useful pointer. Minor redundancy: the parameter list largely repeats schema property names, but the added units and semantics justify the space.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown) and 5 parameters, but the description doesn't mention return values or error conditions. It covers the core parameters and provides an example, but lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., must a blueprint be open?) and edge cases (e.g., invalid blueprint name). The KB reference partially compensates by pointing to more detailed documentation.

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 lists all five parameters with brief explanations (radius in cm, duration persistence, color RGBA, optional position), which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't clarify units for duration (seconds vs frames), the expected color array format (0-1 vs 0-255), or the coordinate space for node_position, leaving ambiguity.

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 Sphere' node for 3D debug visualization, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling debug-drawing tools like add_draw_debug_line_node and add_draw_debug_point_node by naming the sphere variant, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 implies usage context (adding a debug visualization node to a blueprint) and provides an example call, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_draw_debug_line_node or add_draw_debug_point_node. The KB reference hints at deeper context but doesn't provide direct guidance.

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