add_blueprint_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that extra args are only needed for specific node types, which is helpful, but it does not explain side effects, reversibility, or whether adding a node automatically connects it. The description lacks depth for a mutation operation.

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 relatively concise and front-loaded with the purpose. However, the list of node types could be more compact or formatted better to avoid information overload. It is structured but not optimally organized.

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 tool has 10 parameters, many node types, and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to describe the return value, explain all parameters, or provide usage examples. The output schema exists but is not mentioned in the description.

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%, yet the description only partially explains parameters via the extra args note (e.g., message, variable_name, target_function). It does not explain pos_x, pos_y, event_type, function_name, target_blueprint, or other parameters. The list of node types adds context but does not compensate for the missing parameter details.

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 adds a node to a Blueprint graph and provides a comprehensive list of node types by category. It is specific about the verb (Add) and resource (Blueprint graph node). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like add_event_node, which may cause confusion.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as connect_blueprint_nodes, set_blueprint_node_property, or delete_blueprint_node. It does not specify prerequisites or conditions for use.

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