add_vector_add_node

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

The description conveys the primary behavior: it adds a node and performs per-element addition. With no annotations present, it carries the full burden, but it does not mention whether the blueprint asset is modified/saved, whether the operation is destructive, or what happens on failure. This leaves part of the behavioral profile implicit.

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 operation, followed by a brief explanation, args, a KB pointer, and an example. The Ch.14 line is extra but illustrative, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present, return values are already covered. The description provides an example, KB reference, and parameter detail, but it omits side effects like whether the blueprint is saved or compiled, and it does not address sibling vector operations. Given the large sibling list, a bit more routing context would make it fully complete.

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 does by explaining blueprint_name as 'Blueprint name' and node_position as 'Optional [X, Y] graph position', and the example shows how to pass blueprint_name as a content path. This adds meaning beyond the bare 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 opens with 'Add a Vector + Vector addition node', stating a specific verb and resource, and the element-wise formula clarifies exactly what kind of node is created. It does not explicitly differentiate among siblings like add_vector_subtract_node or add_vector_multiply_node, so it misses the top score.

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 Ch.14 example gives a concrete scenario (couch_location = character_location + movement_vector) that implies when this tool is useful. However, there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, and no mention of alternatives or prerequisites such as 'the blueprint must already exist'.

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