add_macro_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 states the operation ('Add') but does not mention side effects, prerequisites (e.g., existing blueprint and macro), failure modes, or whether the graph must be compiled. The KB link provides background but not operation-specific 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 efficiently organized: one-line purpose, arg list, KB pointer, and example. No filler. It could arguably omit duplicating parameter names already in the schema, but the added descriptions justify their place.

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 simple node-adding operation with an output schema (which covers return values) and a KB reference, the description includes the essentials: action, all parameters, and a worked example. It lacks explicit prerequisites and side-effect warnings, which prevents a perfect score.

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 compensates by explaining each parameter: blueprint_name (containing blueprint), macro_name (macro to call), node_position (optional graph position). The example shows concrete asset path formatting and optionality. The only slight gap is the exact format of node_position, but the schema provides its array-of-number type.

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 action ('Add a macro call node to a Blueprint') with a clear verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling node-adding tools (e.g., add_custom_macro, add_blueprint_function_node) because 'macro call node' is a distinct node type. 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?

The usage context is implied: if you need to insert a macro call into a Blueprint graph, this is the tool. However, the description provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over the many sibling add_* node tools, nor any exclusions or alternative references.

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