add_vector_multiply_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Add' and documents the optional node_position, without mentioning graph mutation side effects, failure modes, prerequisites, or whether changes are reversible. The example and KB link help but do not compensate for the missing safety and behavior context.

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 operation. The arg list, KB reference, and example are each informative and earn their place, with 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?

For a simple two-parameter node addition tool with an output schema, the description covers the required parameter, an optional parameter, a practical math use case, and a pointer to deeper documentation. It omits minor details like graph selection and error behavior, but an agent has enough information to call the tool correctly.

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 for the schema's lack of parameter details. It does so by listing blueprint_name and node_position, clarifying that node_position is an optional [X, Y] graph position, and providing a full-path example. It does not explain coordinate system details, but it gives enough to construct a valid call.

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 operation: 'Add a Vector * Float multiplication node.' This clearly identifies the resource being modified and distinguishes it from sibling vector node tools by naming the exact math operation. It lacks an explicit contrast with siblings, but the specificity is sufficient.

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 tip about finding the opposite vector by multiplying by -1 gives a concrete use case, and the KB pointer offers additional context. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternative vector node tools or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer selection from the name.

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