add_set_contains_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the return behavior ('Returns True if the set contains the specified element') and the primary action ('Add a Set CONTAINS node'), which implies a mutation to the blueprint. However, it omits details about prerequisites (e.g., the set variable must exist), failure modes, or any side effects beyond adding the node. The description is partially transparent but lacks depth.

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: a clear one-line purpose, a reference to Ch. 13, a concise Args list, a KB link, and an example. It front-loads the core purpose and avoids unnecessary words. The example adds practical value. It is not overly long but could be slightly more compact; however, the structure earns 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 node-adding tool with an output schema, the description provides an example and a KB reference, which are helpful. However, it does not clarify that node_position is optional, nor does it specify prerequisites like the existence of the set variable or blueprint. Given the schema coverage is 0% and there are no annotations, the description leaves some gaps that an agent might need to discover elsewhere. It is adequate but not fully 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%, so the description must compensate. It lists all three parameters with brief descriptions: 'blueprint_name: Blueprint to add the node to', 'set_variable: Set variable name', and 'node_position: [X, Y] graph position'. It also provides an example using two of the three parameters. However, it does not explain that node_position is optional, nor does it detail the expected format beyond the schema. The descriptions are helpful but not comprehensive.

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 tool's purpose: 'Add a Set CONTAINS node to check if an element exists in a Set.' This specifies the exact verb (Add), resource (Set CONTAINS node), and the function it performs (membership check). It also adds the behavioral detail 'Returns True if the set contains the specified element,' making it distinct from sibling set operations like add_set_union_node or add_set_intersection_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?

The description implies usage by describing the operation ('check if an element exists in a Set'), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternative tools or when not to use it. There is no mention of 'use this for membership tests' or 'instead of other set operations.' The usage context is inferable but not explicit.

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