move_blueprint_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the action and return dict, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it compiles, if it's undoable, permission requirements), and the example uses a 3-element position array while the description says [X,Y], a clear inconsistency that confuses the expected input format. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 with clear sections (Args, Returns, KB, Example) and is not overly verbose. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and each section earns its place, though the example could be tightened to match the described parameter format.

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 tool with no annotations and a 0% schema description coverage, the description is decent but incomplete. It covers parameters and return type, but omits error handling, coordinate system/units, and the position format discrepancy remains unresolved. The KB reference helps but does not fully compensate for these gaps.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning. It clearly defines each parameter: blueprint_name (asset name), node_id (GUID or short name), node_position ([X,Y] canvas position), and graph_name (with default). This adds substantial value beyond the raw schema types, though the node_position format inconsistency with the example reduces clarity slightly.

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 tool's function: 'Reposition an existing node on the Blueprint graph canvas.' It uses a specific verb (reposition) and resource (node on canvas), and distinguishes from sibling tools like add_blueprint_* and delete_blueprint_node by focusing on repositioning existing nodes. The 'Useful for tidying up' context further reinforces its specific role.

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 provides a use case ('Useful for tidying up a graph after programmatic construction') but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it. It lacks guidance on choosing this over add/delete operations or other positioning tools, leaving some inference to the agent.

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