add_set_timer_by_event_node

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the transparency burden. It states the primary mutation: adding a SetTimerByEvent node and connecting a Custom Event. However, it does not clarify whether the custom event or trigger event must already exist or are created by the tool, nor does it disclose save/compile side effects.

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 and front-loaded: purpose sentence, brief explanatory context, Args list, KB pointer, and example. The chapter reference is slightly niche but supports the concrete use case without bloating the definition.

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 six-parameter blueprint mutation with no annotations, the definition covers all argument meanings and provides an example path. The main gap is whether custom_event_name and trigger_event refer to nodes that must already exist or nodes the tool creates, which is important for correct invocation.

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 Args block is essential. It defines all six parameters in plain terms, including interval units, looping behavior, the trigger event example, and the [X, Y] graph position format. This fully compensates for the bare input schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Add a SetTimerByEvent node with a connected Custom Event.' It clearly identifies the node type and its key connection, which distinguishes it from siblings like add_set_timer_by_function_name_node without requiring schema inspection.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool: Set Timer by Event calls a custom event on a regular interval, with a concrete example of triggering GainXP every second. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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