add_nearly_equal_float_node

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states the main behavior—adding a NearlyEqual node—and explains the tolerance-based comparison. However, it does not mention prerequisites such as whether the target blueprint must already exist, whether the result is saved, or what happens on failure.

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 well-organized with a summary, use-case explanation, Args list, KB reference, and example. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary, but each section adds useful information and the structure is easy to scan.

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 all parameters, provides a concrete use case, includes a KB reference, and gives a calling example. Since an output schema exists, return-value documentation is not required. Minor missing details like blueprint existence checks prevent a 5.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description's Args section is essential. It defines all three parameters: blueprint_name, tolerance, and node_position, including the node_position format [X, Y]. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Add a NearlyEqual (float) node to compare floats with tolerance.' This clearly identifies the exact blueprint node being added and its core purpose, distinguishing it from the many other add_*_node sibling tools without needing to inspect the schema.

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 clear usage context: it is used to check if PlayerHealth is approximately 0, and explains why NearlyEqual is preferred over direct == comparison. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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