net_add_role_switch

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

The description plainly states that the tool adds a node, which is a mutation, but with no annotations it fails to disclose side effects: whether the Blueprint is modified in memory or saved, what the save/compile defaults mean, whether existing graph content is affected, or what happens if the Blueprint does not exist. This leaves the agent guessing about the tool's operational behavior.

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: a one-sentence action, a KB pointer, and a concrete example. Every line earns its place and there is 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?

Despite the presence of an output schema, the description lacks essential operational context for a mutating node-insertion tool: where the node is inserted, what save/compile control, how node_position is interpreted, and failure behavior. The KB link is helpful but does not make the description self-sufficient for correct invocation.

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 needed to compensate for all four parameters. It only illustrates blueprint_name via an example path and does not explain save, compile, or node_position beyond their schema defaults. This is insufficient for a tool with multiple interaction-affecting parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('ENetRole switch node') and states the purpose ('role-specific Blueprint flow'). This clearly distinguishes it from generic node-adding siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 phrase 'for role-specific Blueprint flow' provides an intended usage context and the example shows a valid call, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over siblings like net_add_authority_gate or net_set_role_override, and no prerequisites or when-not-to-use conditions are given.

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