add_sphere_trace_by_channel_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It makes the core mutation explicit ('Add a ... node') and explains the node's channel-filtering behavior, but it does not disclose side effects on the blueprint graph, prerequisites such as an existing blueprint, or failure modes. The disclosure is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 organized with a summary line, parameter list, KB reference, and example. It is concise and front-loaded; each section earns its place. The argument list is slightly verbose but readable and useful for an agent.

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 blueprint node-adding tool, the description covers the required blueprint_name, explains key parameters, provides a KB link, and includes a direct invocation example. The output schema exists, so return-value documentation is handled elsewhere. The only notable omission is detailed draw_debug options and explicit prerequisites or error conditions.

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 largely does. It adds units for radius, enumerates valid trace_channel values, marks node_position as optional, and gives a usage example. The main gap is draw_debug, which is only described as 'Debug visualization type' without listing possible values.

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 Sphere Trace By Channel node' and further clarifies it is a 'sphere sweep using trace channel.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling trace-node tools like line, capsule, or box traces by channel. The resource and operation are both concrete and 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?

The description gives useful context about the trace channel ('Visibility or Camera') and points to a knowledge-base reference, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as line trace, multi-sphere trace, or object trace. Usage is implied through the operation name and channel semantics, but no when-not-to-use guidance or explicit alternative comparison is provided.

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