bp_register_existing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the registration intent and the source of the GUID, but says nothing about idempotency, whether reusing a node_id overwrites, failure modes for a bad GUID, or what internal state changes. Adequate but incomplete for a stateful mutation.

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?

Three short, front-loaded lines: purpose, workflow, then parameter notes. No filler, and the essential constraint (register before connecting) appears before the args.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and both parameters plus the prerequisite call are covered. Missing only edge-case behavior (duplicate registration, invalid GUID handling), which is a minor gap for a two-param 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: node_id is 'MCP handle ID you want to use for this node' and node_guid is 'the node's FGuid string from the Blueprint scan', including where to obtain it. Only the expected format/uniqueness of node_id is left implicit.

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?

States a specific verb (register) and resource (an existing Blueprint node) with an explicit purpose clause ('so it can be wired to'), which distinguishes it from the read-only sibling bp_scan_blueprint that merely discovers 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?

Gives an explicit workflow -- call bp_scan_blueprint with include_pins=true to obtain GUIDs, register them here, then connect pins. It names the preceding tool and the condition, but offers no when-not guidance (e.g., versus bp_add_bp_node for new nodes).

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