net_add_authority_gate

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

The description discloses meaningful behavior: it creates a HasAuthority node wired into a Branch node and defines the Then/Else pin semantics as authority/server vs remote/client. However, with no annotations, it omits side effects such as whether an existing Branch is selected, whether nodes are moved, or how save/compile defaults affect the blueprint.

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: purpose, pin semantics, KB reference, and a usage example. Every sentence adds value, though optional parameter behavior could have been included without excessive length.

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?

The core operation and blueprint_name usage are covered, and an output schema exists. Still, with no annotations and no parameter-level guidance, the definition is adequate for a simple default invocation but not fully self-contained for an agent making nuanced choices.

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%, and the description only illustrates blueprint_name through an example. The save, compile, and node_position parameters are not explained, leaving their effects and expected formats undocumented.

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 verb ('Add'), a specific resource ('HasAuthority function node'), and the target graph structure ('wired into a Branch node'). It clearly differentiates this from generic add_* siblings and other net_* tools by explaining the Then/Else server/client flow.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like net_add_role_switch or add_branch_node. The KB reference provides background context but does not state conditions, prerequisites, or when not to use the tool.

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