manage_behavior_tree

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which already signal mutating behavior. The description adds context by naming create/add/configure actions but does not disclose that remove_node and break_connections are destructive operations. It also lacks any side-effect details. Given annotations already cover safety profile, the description adds minimal extra transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that conveys the main operations without fluff. It is front-loaded with the primary verb 'Create' and lists key capabilities. However, it could be more structured by enumerating actions or operation categories, but for its length it serves its purpose.

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?

This is a complex tool with 12 parameters, multiple actions, nested objects, and no output schema. The description is far too sparse to cover how each action works, which parameters are required for each, or what the tool returns. It lacks usage examples or action-specific guidance, making it inadequate for an agent to invoke it 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 58%, so the schema partially explains parameters. The description mentions node types (task/decorator/service) which gives meaning to nodeType, and 'configure node properties' relates to the properties object. However, it does not explain x/y coordinates, connection parameters, or action-specific requirements, so it only adds marginal value beyond the 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 clearly states the tool's function: create behavior trees, add nodes, and configure properties. It identifies the resource (Behavior Trees) and specific actions, which distinguishes it from general AI or task management tools. However, it omits actions like remove_node and break_connections that are present in the action enum, so it is not fully complete.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools include manage_ai, manage_tasks, and others, but the description does not differentiate or state when behavior tree editing is appropriate. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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