set_blackboard_value

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It says the tool 'adds' a node, which implies graph mutation, but it does not state whether the blackboard key must already exist, whether existing nodes or pins are overwritten, or whether the blueprint needs to be loaded or compiled. These are material gaps for a mutation tool.

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: action sentence, parameter list, KB reference, and example. Every section earns its place. The only issue is the inconsistent example value for value_type, which is a precision problem rather than a conciseness problem.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description covers all parameters and provides a KB link and example, which is adequate but not rich. Missing behavioral context includes preconditions like whether the blackboard key must exist and what side effects occur on the graph, leaving the agent to infer some call requirements.

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 reasonably well: it explains each parameter's purpose, lists the allowed value_type strings, and notes that node_position is optional. The example reinforces usage, though the example uses value_type=0.0, which conflicts with the documented string enum, preventing full credit.

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 first sentence states the exact operation: add a 'Set Blackboard Value as [Type]' node. The args clarify the target blueprint and blackboard key. This distinguishes it from siblings like add_get_blackboard_value_node and add_clear_blackboard_value_node by its verb and node name.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. The description does not mention that users should choose this over add_get_blackboard_value_node or add_clear_blackboard_value_node, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name and argument list.

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