add_move_to_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Add' (a mutation) but does not state side effects like whether compilation is required, whether the blueprint must exist, or how the node integrates into the graph. The output schema exists but is not mentioned. No error conditions or prerequisites are disclosed.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a clear args list, a KB reference, and an example. The arg list is necessary because the schema lacks descriptions. No redundant filler.

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 core purpose, args, and an example, and points to the KB for more context. However, it does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., blueprint must exist), does not describe the output schema, and is vague about the exact behavior of the node. For a tool with three parameters and no annotations, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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 explains all three parameters: blueprint_name specifies the target blueprint (with a hint about typical types), acceptance_radius defines proximity, and node_position is optional. This adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema types and titles.

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 the tool adds a specific 'AI Move To' function call node, which is distinct from the many other node-adding tools in the sibling list. The verb 'Add' and the specific node type make the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the dozens of sibling node-adding tools (e.g., add_blueprint_function_node, add_math_node). It only provides an example, not a when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement. The implication that it's for AI Move To nodes is present but not explicit.

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