ue_bt_add_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait that node type is inferred from class inheritance (BTCompositeNode → ChildComposite, else ChildTask), and explains parent_path/index semantics. However, it does not mention return values or error conditions.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a type-inference note, a prerequisite tip, and a bulleted Args list. Every sentence adds functional value, with no fluff 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?

For a mutation tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this is notably complete. It covers purpose, type inference, path formats, index positioning, and even points to `ue_bt_info` as a companion tool, making it self-sufficient for an agent.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description compensates fully. The Args section explains every parameter: bt_path, parent_path with examples, node_class with concrete example classes, and index with default behavior (append if omitted). This goes well beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Aggiunge un nodo (composite o task) come figlio di un nodo composite esistente' (adds a composite/task node as child of an existing composite node). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like ue_bt_add_decorator and ue_bt_add_service by focusing on adding composite/task nodes.

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 advises using `ue_bt_info` to see existing paths before adding, and explains parent_path formats ('root', '0', '0.1'). It provides solid contextual guidance but does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use this tool.

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