add_set_relative_location_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 that the tool adds a node to the Blueprint graph, but it does not disclose side effects such as whether the graph is modified in place, whether compilation is required, what happens if the component does not exist, or whether existing connections are affected. For a mutation-style tool, this is a meaningful transparency gap.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and stays fairly compact. It uses labeled sections for args, knowledge base reference, and an example. The 'Ch.14' line adds useful conceptual context, though it could be trimmed without losing much; overall it is efficiently organized.

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 relatively simple node-add operation, the description covers the essential call context: all three parameters are explained, the optional parameter is marked, and a concrete example is provided. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. The main missing context is operational prerequisites and failure behavior, but the tool is simple enough that the current description is mostly sufficient.

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 does so by listing each parameter with a short explanation: blueprint_name as the Blueprint, component_name as the component to move, and node_position as an optional [X, Y] graph position. The example also clarifies real values, especially the path format for blueprint_name.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Add a "Set Relative Location" node to move a component relative to its parent.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling get/set location and transform tools. The additional note that relative location is local to the parent transform further sharpens the purpose.

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 the tool is relevant: when you want to move a component relative to its parent using a Blueprint node. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, such as world-space location nodes or directly setting component properties. Usage context is present but mostly implicit.

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