add_set_collision_enabled_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. It states the intended action but does not disclose side effects, preconditions (e.g., whether the blueprint must be open or compiled), persistence behavior, or error cases. The mutation-like nature of adding a node is implied but never made explicit.

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 purpose, followed by an args list, KB reference, and example. The format is scannable and every section earns its place, though the per-parameter list slightly duplicates schema information.

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?

All required parameters are covered and an output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, with no annotations, the description lacks behavioral context such as where the node is added, whether it replaces existing collision settings, or what side effects occur. This is adequate but leaves clear gaps for an agent selecting and invoking the tool.

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 compensate, and it does. It enumerates all four parameters, explains collision_enabled's allowed values, and marks node_position as optional. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema types, though blueprint_name and component_name are only minimally described.

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 Set Collision Enabled node to toggle collision on a component.' This names the specific resource and operation. It does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like add_set_collision_profile_node or set_collision_settings, but the verb and node-specific phrasing are sufficiently unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance or alternative comparisons are provided. The example shows a plausible invocation, and the description implies this is for graph editing, but it never tells the agent when to choose this over collision-related siblings such as add_set_collision_profile_node or set_collision_settings.

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