add_quit_game_node

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly says the tool adds a node to a blueprint and explains the quit_preference options ('Quit' or 'Background'). However, it does not disclose side effects, failure behavior, or whether the blueprint needs to be saved or compiled afterward, which is a meaningful gap for a mutation tool.

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 well-organized: purpose first, then usage context, parameters, a KB pointer, and an example. Every section earns its place, and there is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 simple three-parameter node-insertion operation with an output schema, the description provides purpose, parameter semantics, usage context, and an example. It lacks explicit side-effect and when-not-to-use guidance, but overall it gives an agent sufficient information to call the tool correctly.

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 fully compensates by defining all three parameters: blueprint_name as the target blueprint, quit_preference with its two valid values, and node_position as an [X, Y] graph position. This gives an agent enough semantic understanding beyond the raw schema.

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 operation: 'Add a QuitGame node to exit the application.' This names the exact resource and the intended behavior, making it clearly distinguishable from the many sibling add_*_node tools. The example also reinforces the target blueprint parameter.

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 context for when the node is relevant: 'From Ch. 8 (Win/Lose menu Quit button) and Ch. 11 (Pause menu).' This implies typical usage but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Usage guidance is present but only implied.

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