add_make_map_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the action (adds a node) but does not disclose side effects such as whether it modifies the blueprint graph, requires a saved blueprint, can be called multiple times, or what errors might occur. It does not mention whether the node is automatically connected or placed. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose. It includes a reference, an Args list, a KB link, and an example. The structure is clear and each part serves a purpose, though the Args list and example add length. It is efficient and not padded.

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 the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the core aspects: what it does, how to call it (example), and parameter semantics. It does not describe return values (but output schema exists) or potential errors, but it provides enough for an agent to invoke it correctly in typical scenarios. The KB reference adds context.

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 lists all five parameters with brief but meaningful explanations: 'blueprint_name: Blueprint to add the node to', 'key_type: Key type', 'value_type: Value type', 'num_pairs: Number of key-value pair input pins', and 'node_position: [X, Y] graph position'. These add context beyond the schema's types and defaults, especially for num_pairs and node_position.

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 clearly states 'Add a Make Map node to create a Map from key-value pairs' and 'Creates a Map literal from individual key-value pin inputs.' It specifies the verb (add), the resource (Make Map node), and the function (create a Map literal). It distinguishes itself from siblings like add_make_array_node and add_make_set_node by the specific node type and purpose.

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 does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It gives an example call but does not mention when a Make Map node is appropriate compared to other node-creation tools, nor any prerequisites (e.g., blueprint must exist) or exclusions. The only contextual hint is a reference to Ch. 13 and a KB link, which is not actionable guidance.

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