add_reroute_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'Add a Reroute node,' implying a mutation, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., graph modification, compilation triggers), permissions, or return behavior. The output schema exists but is not referenced. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap, warranting a 2.

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 concise and well-structured: it opens with the action, provides background on Reroute nodes, lists parameters, and includes a KB reference and example. No superfluous content; each section earns its place. Slightly longer than necessary but still efficient, so a 4.

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 node-add tool, the description covers the core purpose and parameters. However, it lacks precise details on blueprint path conventions, coordinate system for node_position, and any prerequisites or effects (e.g., whether the blueprint must be loaded). With many sibling node tools and no annotations, a bit more context would help the agent call it correctly. A 3 reflects this balance.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It lists both parameters and gives a format for node_position ('[X, Y] graph position'), which adds value. However, it does not explain the coordinate system, units, or whether blueprint_name expects a full path (though the example shows a path). Minimal but helpful, hence a 3.

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 clearly states the action 'Add a Reroute node' and its purpose 'to organize wire routing in the graph.' It explains what a Reroute node is (dot-shaped, bends wires) and provides an example. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with other node-adding siblings, the specific node type makes the purpose unambiguous, earning a 4 rather than a 5 due to lack of explicit sibling differentiation.

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 implies when to use the tool ('to organize wire routing... improve readability') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It provides an example invocation, which helps, but there is no guidance on choosing this over other add_*_node tools. Usage context is implied rather than stated, so a 3 is appropriate.

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