add_open_level_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that level_name can be pin-connected and node_position is optional, adding behavioral context. However, it does not mention persistence, failure modes, or whether the blueprint must be compiled/saved after the node is added.

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?

Opens with a one-sentence purpose, followed by a compact Args list, KB reference, and a concrete example. No filler or redundancy; the structure is scannable and 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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered there. The description covers parameters, purpose, and usage example. The main gap is underspecifying where the node is placed within the blueprint graph and what happens if the blueprint is missing, but for a 3-parameter tool this is largely usable.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so this section must compensate. The Args list gives plain-language meaning for all three parameters: blueprint name, default level to open, optional graph position, and pin-connectability of level_name. This goes beyond the bare schema, though bluepring_name's gloss is minimal.

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 ('Add') and resource ('Open Level (by Name)' node') plus its purpose ('level loading/switching'). This distinguishes it from the many sibling add_*_node tools without needing to know their schemas.

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 phrase 'for level loading/switching gives a clear context for when to use this tool, and the example shows the minimal call shape. It does not name exclusions or alternatives, but the stated purpose is enough to differentiate selection.

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