add_print_text_node

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the action and parameter effects but omits side effects, prerequisites, whether the node is auto-connected to existing graph flow, or what state the blueprint is left in. The KB reference adds potential depth but is not itself behavioral disclosure.

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-structured with a concise summary, context, Args, KB reference, and example. It is slightly repetitive about the Format Text connection ('used in Ch. 18' and 'used with the Format Text node output in the dice roll library example'), but overall every section earns its place and the key details are 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 straightforward add-node tool, the description covers what, why, parameters, an example, and a KB pointer. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not required. Minor gaps such as missing explicit preconditions or graph-placement behavior are acceptable for this simplicity level, but the lack of behavioral transparency keeps it from 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the Args section explains all three parameters: blueprint_name, duration, and node_position (with format [X, Y]). This compensates for the empty schema descriptions. It could add more nuance like coordinate units or bounds, but the explanations are sufficient for correct invocation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Add a Print Text node'. It also differentiates from the sibling add_print_string_node by noting it works with Text type values instead of String, which prevents confusion among the large family of add_*_node tools.

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?

It clearly positions the tool relative to Print String ('Like Print String but works with Text type values'), implying when each should be used. It also gives concrete usage context ('used in Ch. 18 with Format Text output') and a worked example. It does not explicitly state exclusions, but the comparison and usage hint provide enough guidance.

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