add_print_string_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It includes some useful behaviors: message can be overridden by a connection, duration controls on-screen time, and node_position is optional. However, it does not disclose that the tool modifies a target blueprint asset, whether the blueprint must already exist, where in the graph the node is inserted, or any side effects such as needing compilation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a succinct args list, a KB pointer, and a realistic example. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundant restating of schema defaults or boilerplate.

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 example and KB reference help an agent get started, and the parameter list covers all five inputs. However, for a mutation tool that adds a node to a blueprint, the description omits where the node is added, any prerequisite state of the blueprint, and how the result is returned. The output schema exists, which covers return values, but the missing usage context and side-effect disclosure leave the description only minimally 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 explain parameters, and it does: each of the five arguments gets a meaningful one-line explanation, including the default-string override behavior and the RGB format for color. This goes beyond the bare property titles in the input schema, though it could add value by specifying units for duration or coordinate formats for node_position.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource combination: 'Add a Print String node (shows debug message on screen).' This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling add-node tools, even add_print_text_node, by naming the exact node type and its runtime effect.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_print_text_node or other debug-related nodes. The KB reference and example imply context but do not state conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool's name and one-line purpose.

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