add_sphere_trace_for_objects_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the operation adds a node to a blueprint graph, and explains the conceptual behavior of sphere traces (volume vs line, more expensive, wider detection). It does not disclose side effects like whether it modifies the blueprint, requires compilation, or what happens if the blueprint doesn't exist. The example shows a typical call but doesn't describe return values or errors.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The conceptual explanation, args list, KB reference, and example are all useful and each earns its place. The only minor issue is the 'Ch.14' reference is cryptic without context, but it's a small overhead.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema details beyond existence. The description covers the parameters and gives a conceptual overview, but lacks specifics on parameter value formats (especially object_types and draw_debug), error behavior, and what the node's pins/connections look like. For a node-adding tool in a large sibling set, more detail on how this differs from other trace nodes would improve completeness.

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 five parameters with brief meanings (blueprint_name, radius, object_types, draw_debug, node_position), which adds value beyond the bare schema. However, the descriptions are terse: 'Object types to detect' doesn't explain the expected format (e.g., enum names, array of strings), and 'Debug visualization type' doesn't list possible values. The example only shows 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 clearly states the tool adds a 'Sphere Trace For Objects' node, a sphere-shaped collision test, and explains the concept (sweeps a sphere along a volume). It distinguishes from line traces by noting it tests along a volume instead of a line. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the many sibling trace tools (e.g., add_sphere_trace_by_channel_node, add_capsule_trace_by_channel_node) beyond the general shape/object-types distinction.

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 provides context on when sphere traces are appropriate ('More expensive but detects wider areas'), which implies usage. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_line_trace_for_objects_node or add_sphere_trace_by_channel_node. The KB reference is a pointer but not explicit guidance.

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