add_set_variable_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and adds meaningful detail: it returns a dict with 'node_id', and the added node has exec pins plus a value input pin. It stops short of describing failure behavior if the variable is missing or whether the node is added to the currently open graph.

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 tight and well organized: one-line purpose, Args, Returns, KB pointer, and a concrete example. Every section adds information without redundancy or filler.

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 three-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers input semantics, return shape, an example, and a KB reference. It is slightly incomplete on graph placement and error behavior, but it gives an agent enough to invoke it correctly in the common case.

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?

Input schema has 0% property description coverage, and the description compensates by explaining all three parameters: blueprint_name, variable_name with the critical 'must exist' constraint, and node_position as an optional [X, Y] graph position. It does not specify coordinate details, but the essential meanings are covered.

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 states a specific action, 'Add a 'Set [VariableName]' node to write to a variable,' naming the resource and the operation. It clearly means a Blueprint variable-setter node, but it does not explicitly differentiate from close sibling tools like add_blueprint_variable_set_node or add_get_variable_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?

It provides useful usage context (variable must exist in the Blueprint, node_position is optional) and an example, but it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. With a long sibling list of similar node-adder tools, explicit routing would be stronger.

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