net_set_role_override

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It does state that the tool mutates a Blueprint by adding a node and that save/compile are optional post-mutation steps. However, it does not explain other behavioral effects, such as where the node is placed by default or what 'role override' means in the generated graph.

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 with the core purpose, followed by a brief Args list, a KB pointer, and a concrete example. Every section earns its place and there is no unnecessary filler.

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 presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values, and the example plus KB link help. Still, the description lacks enough domain context to distinguish this role-override helper from sibling role-switch tools, and it does not explain the intended graph-level outcome well enough for a fully informed call.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description's Args section is essential. It covers all four parameters, and the example clarifies the node_position format. The save/compile explanations are minimal but sufficient, and blueprint_name is usefully described as either an asset name or path.

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 ('Add a role-switch helper node') and a clear resource/domain ('authority/role-specific Blueprint flow'). This is enough to understand the basic purpose, but it does not clarify how this tool differs from the similarly named sibling net_add_role_switch.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like net_add_role_switch or net_add_authority_gate. The KB link is a reference pointer, not usage routing, so an agent cannot decide between overlapping networking tools from this description.

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