add_min_max_node

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the node's function (returns smaller/larger) but does not disclose side effects such as whether the blueprint is modified immediately, whether it requires compilation or saving, or whether it operates on the currently open blueprint graph. For a mutating tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap, though not misleading.

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-organized: a purpose sentence, a usage context sentence, an Args list, a KB pointer, and an example. It front-loads the core purpose and uses a clear structure with minimal fluff. The KB reference is a minor extra but not distracting.

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's simplicity, an output schema exists (so return format is covered), and all parameters are defined with an example. The description lacks some operational detail (e.g., whether the node is added to the currently focused graph, or what happens if the blueprint_name is invalid), but for a small node-add utility it is reasonably complete. The KB reference supplements 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 does so by listing all four parameters in the Args block with brief but accurate definitions: blueprint_name, operation ('Min' or 'Max'), operand_type ('Float' or 'Integer'), and node_position (optional [X, Y] graph position). It also provides a concrete example with blueprint_name. While terse, it covers every parameter meaningfully, which is above the baseline for a 0%-coverage schema.

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 what the tool does: 'Add a "Min" or "Max" node returning the smaller/larger of two values.' It uses a specific verb (Add) and resource (Min/Max node), and even adds context about usage in health/stamina clamping and scoring. This distinguishes it from sibling node-add functions like add_abs_node or add_clamp_node, though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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 tells when to use the tool: 'Used in health/stamina clamping and scoring systems throughout the book.' This gives clear context but does not state explicit exclusions or alternatives. For a simple node-addition tool, that's adequate, but it could be more prescriptive about when not to use it (e.g., when other node types are more appropriate).

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