add_relational_operator_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the node returns a Boolean and explains each operator's comparison semantics. However, it does not mention that this mutates the blueprint graph, whether a blueprint must be loaded/compiled first, or what the tool returns besides the added node.

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 clear intent line, operator reference, argument list, knowledge base pointer, and example. It is somewhat verbose, but each section serves a purpose, and the operator breakdown is genuinely useful rather than filler.

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?

Given the sparse schema and lack of annotations, the description provides enough to call the tool correctly: parameter meanings, allowed values, optionality, example call, and a KB reference. The main missing piece is guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling node-adding tools, but the operational details are sufficiently 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%, but the description fully compensates: it enumerates all four parameters, gives the allowed values for operator and operand_type, marks node_position optional with [X, Y] semantics, and clarifies blueprint_name. This is exactly the kind of value the schema does not provide.

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 action ('Add a relational (comparison) operator node') and its distinguishing output ('returning a Boolean'). It is clear among the large set of add_*_node siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with related tools like add_arithmetic_operator_node or add_logical_operator_node.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The example and argument list imply usage, but the description never tells an agent how to choose relational operators over arithmetic or logical operator nodes.

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