add_get_relative_location_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only says 'Add' a node. It does not mention mutation side effects, graph state changes, preconditions (e.g., blueprint must be loaded), or failure behavior. The transform context is domain knowledge, not operational behavior.

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 and front-loaded with the main action, followed by a short context note, parameter list, KB reference, and example. It is concise and every section contributes useful information without excessive 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?

For a moderate-complexity mutation tool with no annotations, the description is reasonably complete: it names required and optional parameters, gives an example, and references knowledge base context. However, it omits operational details such as where the node is placed in the graph and what happens after insertion, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 explains each parameter, clarifies node_position as an optional [X, Y] graph position, and provides a concrete path-style example for blueprint_name. It could be more precise about coordinate types, but it adds real meaning beyond the 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Add a Get Relative Location node for a specific component.' This clearly distinguishes it from actor-level location nodes and setter nodes, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 useful conceptual context about component transforms being relative to their parent, which implies when this tool is relevant. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this node versus alternatives like add_get_actor_location_node or add_set_relative_location_node.

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