reconstruct_blueprint_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explains that the tool forces reconstruction to regenerate pins and propagate concrete types, and it advises post-actions. It does not mention potential side effects like connection loss or reversibility, but the purpose and mechanism are disclosed.

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 well organized: purpose, usage context, args, KB link, and an example. Every sentence serves a purpose and the information is front-loaded.

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 description provides the essentials: purpose, parameters, an example, and follow-up diagnostics. It does not detail return values or error conditions, but the output schema exists and the KB reference fills that gap, so the description is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, but the description compensates fully with an Args block that explains each parameter (blueprint_name as asset name, node_id as GUID or short object name, graph_name with a default) and includes a concrete example. The parameter semantics are clear and actionable.

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?

"Force a Blueprint node to reconstruct after pin/default mutation" uses a specific verb and resource, and the "repair primitive" classification distinguishes it from the many node-creation and connection tools in siblings. The description clearly states the outcome and scope.

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?

"Use this repair primitive after setting defaults or wiring wildcard nodes" gives explicit conditions for useaine. The follow-up guidance to read the graph and compile diagnostics provides clear context, but it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternative repair tools.

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