add_gate_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully explains Gate node behavior—when open, Exit fires on each Enter, and Open/Close/Toggle control the state—and notes optional node position. However, it does not disclose tool-level effects such as graph mutation, save/compile implications, or prerequisites like the blueprint already existing.

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 well-structured: behavior first, then args, KB pointer, and example. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or 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?

Given the output schema exists and the operation is moderately simple, the description is largely complete: it explains semantics, parameters, and provides a working example plus KB reference. Minor gaps include not stating that the node is inserted into the blueprint graph at a specific location or whether any connection is auto-wired, but these do not critically block 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: start_closed is explained, node_position format is given as optional [X, Y], and the example clarifies blueprint_name path syntax. It falls short only by leaving blueprint_name itself somewhat generic, though the example mitigates that.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Add a Gate node that controls execution flow,' and adds useful runtime semantics about the Exit, Enter, Open, Close, and Toggle pins. However, it does not differentiate this from the near-identical sibling add_blueprint_gate_node, so it loses the top score.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives are provided. The intended use is implied by the name and description, but an agent is not told how to choose this over add_blueprint_gate_node or add_multigate_node.

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