add_logical_operator_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the boolean semantics of the operators but says little about the tool's actual behavior: prerequisites such as the blueprint existing, side effects on the graph, error behavior, or what the function returns. The truth table is node semantics, not tool 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 compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose, operator table, args list, KB pointer, and example. It is front-loaded with the key statement. Minor noise comes from the 'Ch.2:' prefix and KB reference line, but they do not undermine readability.

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 that an output schema exists and this is a simple three-parameter node-adding tool, the description covers every argument, provides the operator meanings, includes a KB pointer, and gives a realistic example. It leaves prerequisites and side effects to inference, but it is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in the common case.

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%, and the description compensates meaningfully: operator gets explicit allowed values, node_position is explained as an optional [X, Y] graph position, and the example provides a concrete blueprint_name format. The only notable omission is explicitly stating the default operator, though the schema already declares 'default: AND'.

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 verb and resource: 'Add a logical (boolean) operator node,' and then names the exact operators (AND, OR, NOT, XOR). The 'logical (boolean)' qualifier clearly distinguishes this from arithmetic and relational operator siblings, and the example reinforces the intended use.

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?

When to use the tool is implied through the operator semantics and the example invocation, but the description never mentions alternatives or says when not to use it. It does not explicitly route the agent away from sibling tools like add_arithmetic_operator_node or add_relational_operator_node.

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