add_format_text_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that {ParameterName} placeholders dynamically create input pins and that output is formatted text. It does not mention side effects of modifying the blueprint, error conditions, or what happens with malformed format strings, but the core behavior is disclosed.

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 with a short introduction, example, Args list, KB reference, and invocation example. Slight redundancy exists between 'Each {Name} becomes an input pin' and the later repeated pin-creation statement, but the structure is otherwise efficient.

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 single-node-addition tool, the description covers the key mechanism, all parameters, provides an example, and links to KB context. Since an output schema exists, return-value documentation is not required. It lacks explicit alternative guidance and edge-case handling, but is largely complete for correct 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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: the Args section gives meaningful semantics for blueprint_name, format_string, and node_position, including the template placeholder convention and graph-position meaning. This goes beyond the raw 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?

The description clearly states the verb and resource: it adds a Format Text node and explains its purpose (building text from a template with parameters). It is specific enough to distinguish from generic node-adders, though it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like add_print_text_node.

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 intended use is implied by the phrase 'to build text from a template with parameters' and the example. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternative text-related nodes, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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