build_trace_interaction_blueprint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly discloses the mutations: adds a macro, adds a keyboard event, adds LineTraceByChannel, adds Break Hit Result, and compiles the Blueprint. It does not state prerequisites like whether the target Blueprint must already exist, but its main side effects are transparent.

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 well-structured: a one-line purpose, a numbered step list, and a compact Args block. It is scannable and front-loaded, though the KB pointer and example add only marginal value and could be trimmed.

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 multi-step mutation tool, it covers all five build steps and all four parameters, and provides a no-arg example, so an agent can invoke it confidently. Still, it lacks prerequisites and failure context—such as what happens if the named Blueprint does not exist—and the KB reference is terse and not clearly tied to the trace-interaction content.

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 Args block adds useful meaning beyond the schema, such as blueprint_name being the target Blueprint and trace_range measured in cm. However, with 0% schema description coverage, it only partially compensates: trace_channel just says 'trace channel to use' with no accepted values, and input_key lacks a key-name format.

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 action—building a complete trace-based interaction system—and enumerates five concrete blueprint construction steps. It is clearly distinct from single-node sibling tools like add_line_trace_by_channel_node, though it never explicitly names or contrasts those alternatives.

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 'Build a complete...' phrasing and the numbered steps imply this is intended for full Ch.14 setup rather than individual node operations. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, alternative routing, or statement of what should be used instead when only a single node is needed.

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