add_lerp_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the math and operand types but does not mention side effects (e.g., modifying the blueprint, requiring compilation, or whether the operation is reversible), prerequisites for blueprint_name, or error conditions.

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 labeled sections (Args, KB, Example) and includes the formula concisely. It avoids fluff, though the "Ch.6" reference is cryptic and the example could be more complete.

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?

While an output schema exists so return values need not be explained, the description omits important context: which graph the node is added to, whether the blueprint must be open/loaded, and how node_position maps to coordinates. The definition is adequate for a simple caller but leaves several operational details ambiguous.

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 descriptions are at 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It lists all three parameters with brief explanations and gives a concrete example for blueprint_name. However, it lacks detail on node_position units, the exact string format for blueprint_name, or the meaning of operand_type in context.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: "Add a 'Lerp' (Linear Interpolation) node." This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from other add_*_node siblings. The formula and use case further reinforce what the node does.

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 text mentions typical use cases ("smooth transitions like FOV zoom and stamina drain") and provides an example, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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