add_math_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the intent to add a node but does not describe side effects on the blueprint graph, failure modes, return value behavior, or whether the blueprint is mutated/compiled.

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 reasonably compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a structured argument list. The example uses 'Example' as an operation value that is not in the valid list, which slightly undermines its usefulness, but overall the structure is clear.

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?

The description covers the essential operation enum and gives a KB pointer, and an output schema exists so return values need not be detailed. However, it omits node_position coordinate format, offers no guidance amid many overlapping sibling tools, and provides a misleading example value.

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%, but the description compensates well by exhaustively listing valid operation values and adding human-readable notes for VSize and Normalize. The blueprint_name and node_position explanations are thin, though the example path provides some format 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 states a clear action and resource: 'Add a math operation node.' It enumerates the supported operations, which clarifies what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish itself from overlapping sibling tools like add_abs_node, add_clamp_node, add_lerp_node, or add_math_expression_node.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this generic math node tool versus the many specialized sibling node-adders present in the tool list. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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