add_switch_on_int_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries a heavier burden, and it does a good job: it states that the tool adds a node, routes execution by integer, and documents the return value and output pin naming. It doesn't discuss prerequisites or side effects, but adding a node is low-risk and the main behavior is disclosed.

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?

Compact and well-structured: the purpose line is front-loaded, followed by Args, Returns, KB pointer, and a minimal example. Every section adds value and nothing is redundant.

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 node-creation tool, the description is nearly sufficient: all parameters are addressed, return shape is described, a KB link is provided, and an example call is included. It could be more complete by clarifying whether cases is optional and which graph the node is added to.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description's parameter section is the only source of meaning. It explains cases as integer values, marks node_position as optional coordinates, and the example clarifies the blueprint_name format. Minor ambiguity remains over whether cases is optional and what happens when omitted.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a Switch on Int flow control node') and explains the routing behavior. It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling add_blueprint_switch_on_int_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?

The routing behavior implies the intended use case (integer-based flow control in a Blueprint graph), and the example gives a concrete calling context. However, it never explicitly contrasts with alternatives like add_switch_on_string_node or add_switch_on_enum_node, nor states when not to use it.

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