add_get_game_instance_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only states that the tool adds a node and describes the node's behavior, but it omits side effects (e.g., blueprint modification, compile requirements, potential failures) and prerequisites (e.g., target graph selection). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement, a brief context explanation, an args list, a knowledge base reference, and a concrete example. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 tool adds a node to a blueprint, the description does not specify which graph the node is added to or any prerequisites (e.g., whether the blueprint must be open or the node placement logic). There is an output schema that may cover return values, but missing context about the target graph and required preconditions leaves the description incomplete for reliable 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%, but the description adds minimal meaning: it labels blueprint_name as 'Blueprint name' (redundant with schema title) and clarifies node_position as an optional [X, Y] coordinate. The example provides a path for blueprint_name, which is helpful, but the description does not fully explain the expected format or purpose of each parameter beyond the schema titles.

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 action (Add) and the specific node type ('Get Game Instance'), distinguishing it from sibling node-adding tools. It also explains the node's purpose (returns the Game Instance, persists across level loads), making the intent 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 implies when to use the tool (when you need persistent data across levels) by explaining the node's behavior, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No when-not-to-use guidance is given, so an agent must infer context from the description.

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