add_multigate_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the behavior of the MultiGate node itself, but does not disclose tool-level behaviors such as what happens if the blueprint does not exist, whether the graph must already be open, or what the returned output contains. The example and KB reference help, but some operational traits remain implicit.

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?

Well-structured and efficient: a one-line action, a two-sentence behavioral explanation, a compact Args list, a KB pointer, and a concrete example. No filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 node-adding tool with five parameters and no annotations, this is largely complete: all parameters are explained, behavior is described, and an example is included. It does not explicitly state prerequisites like blueprint existence or graph context, and the KB reference is vague, but an output schema exists so return-value details are not required.

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 lists and explains all five parameters: blueprint_name, num_outputs, is_random, loop, and node_position. Each parameter gets a meaningful one-line explanation, including the optional [X, Y] format for node_position, fully compensating for the absent schema descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Add a MultiGate flow control node', and then defines what MultiGate does (sequence/random multi-output with optional loop). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like add_gate_node, add_blueprint_sequence_node, and add_flipflop_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?

The behavioral description implies when to use it: when execution must fan out across multiple output pins in sequence or randomly with optional looping. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the provided semantics give enough context for an agent to select it appropriately.

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