blueprint_node_set_enabled

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explicitly mentions the significant side effects of compiling and saving, which is helpful for a mutation tool. However, it omits error behavior, permissions, and reversibility.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and every word contributes to understanding the operation.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is sparse. It covers the main action and side effects but does not explain graph_name usage or potential errors, leaving it minimally complete for a 4-parameter tool.

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?

The schema only describes blueprint_path (25% coverage). The description adds minimal semantics by referencing GUID for node_guid and enable/disable for the enabled boolean, but graph_name remains unexplained and other parameter details are absent.

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 action (enable/disable), target (a node by GUID), and side effects (compile and save). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like blueprint_node_add and 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 purpose implies the tool is for toggling a node's enabled state, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. It lacks exclusions or references to related tools.

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