add_vector_length_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions the node returns a magnitude and gives the formula, but does not disclose that adding a node is a mutation to the blueprint, whether it requires the blueprint to exist, whether it affects other nodes, or if it needs compilation afterward. It also doesn't clarify the default behavior when node_position is omitted. The behavioral coverage is thin for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured: a one-line purpose, a formula, a short usage hint, an Args section, a KB reference, and an example. It front-loads the core purpose and avoids fluff. The KB reference is an extra pointer that doesn't bloat the text. It earns a high score for being appropriately sized and organized.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return format need not be explained), the tool is a mutation that adds a node to a blueprint. It lacks critical context: whether blueprint_name must be a full asset path, what happens if the blueprint doesn't exist, whether node_position defaults to a specific location, and whether the node is added to the currently open graph. The description also doesn't mention any side effects like requiring a compile step. For a tool with no annotations and a sparse schema, these gaps make it incomplete.

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. The Args section labels blueprint_name as 'Blueprint name' (trivial, adds no new meaning) and node_position as 'Optional [X, Y] graph position' (gives format but not semantics like coordinate system or units). The example provides a concrete value for blueprint_name but doesn't clarify acceptable formats or constraints. This is insufficient compensation for the 0% schema coverage.

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 verb 'Add' and the specific resource 'Vector Length node', and explains what it does: 'returns the magnitude/distance of a vector'. The formula (Length = sqrt(X*X + Y*Y + Z*Z)) further disambiguates it from other vector math siblings like add_dot_product_node or add_cross_product_node. This is a precise, unambiguous purpose.

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 gives a single usage hint: 'Use to measure distances.' This tells the agent when it's appropriate, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives among the many add_* node tools. The guidance is present but minimal, lacking exclusion criteria or comparison to sibling vector nodes.

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