blueprint_node_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool compiles and saves, returns the GUID, and provides extensive detail about node_type and config keys, including an exception for snake_case input nodes. It does not cover failure scenarios or overwrite behavior, but the disclosed side effect of save/compile is significant.

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 dense but each sentence contributes: main action, return value, node_type list, config examples, and naming exception. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and returns for pin wiring. No wasted words; the length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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?

With 5 parameters, a nested config object, and no output schema, the description covers the essential output (GUID), detailed parameter semantics, the compile/save side effect, and the naming convention exception. It is comprehensive for a tool of this complexity, leaving little ambiguity for the 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?

While schema coverage is 100% for the basic properties, the 'config' parameter is an open object with no structure. The description compensates by enumerating many node_type factory names and per-type config key examples, plus explaining class path formats and the snake_case exception. This adds essential semantic value 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 resource: 'Add a node to a Blueprint graph.' It also states the return value (new node's GUID for pin wiring), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like blueprint_node_move or blueprint_node_delete.

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 implies its usage for adding nodes but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it list exclusions or alternative tools. The purpose is evident from the verb 'add,' but no direct guidance is provided beyond that.

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