add_interface_function_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 clearly states the tool adds an interface call node and allows an optional graph position, and the example illustrates expected input. However, it does not mention side effects on the blueprint graph, error behavior, or what the output schema represents. It adds some context but lacks rich behavioral detail.

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 core action. The domain explanation, args list, KB reference, and example each serve a purpose. It is slightly wordy with repeated 'interface' terms, but overall efficient and scannable.

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 graph-node creation tool with an output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it states the operation, lists parameters, gives a reference, and includes a concrete example. However, it omits prerequisites such as whether the interface must already exist, how node_position should be structured, and what happens if required names are invalid. The KB link mitigates but does not fully compensate.

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. It lists all four parameters with brief meanings and provides an example call showing a full blueprint path. However, several descriptions are near-tautological ('interface_name: Interface name'), and node_position gives no coordinate semantics. The example helps but does not fully close the schema gap.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Add a Message [FunctionName] interface call node.' It also explains the conceptual purpose of interface messages. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the similarly named sibling add_call_interface_function_node, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives useful conceptual context: interface messages can be sent to any actor implementing the interface without knowing its exact class. This implies a use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as add_blueprint_function_node or add_interface_event_node, and no when-not-to-use conditions.

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