bp_repair_exec_chain

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 does disclose that it is deterministic, only affects exec pins, and does not create nodes or rearrange data connections. It also describes the return structure. However, it does not mention potential failure modes, whether the operation is reversible, or if it triggers compilation or saving, which are important for a mutation tool. The disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 moderately long but well-structured: it leads with the core purpose, then lists arguments and returns, includes a KB reference and an example. The information is dense and each section earns its place. It could be slightly trimmed (e.g., the example is helpful but not essential), but it remains efficient and scannable.

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?

Given the 4 parameters, all are fully described. The return structure is explained with field names and types. The example clarifies usage. It doesn't cover edge cases like handling of missing nodes or duplicate names, but for a repair tool this is reasonably complete. The KB reference offers further context. It is more complete than most tool descriptions, though not exhaustive.

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 zero parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does provide a clear explanation for each parameter: blueprint_path (full asset path or plain name), graph_name, source_node_name (exec-output side), destination_node_name (exec-input side). It also clarifies the direction of exec connections, which adds critical semantics beyond the schema's bare names. This is solid compensation for the schema gap.

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 a specific verb ('reconnect'), a specific resource ('broken exec chain between two named nodes'), and the scope ('only connects exec pins'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from generic connection tools by emphasizing deterministic repair and no node creation or data rearrangement, which sets it apart from siblings like connect_blueprint_nodes and bp_connect_pins.

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 implies when to use it: when there is a broken exec chain. It explicitly states what it will NOT do (create nodes, rearrange data connections), which guides against using it for those purposes. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or conditions when not to use it, so it falls short of fully explicit guidance, but the intent is clear.

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