add_anim_graph_node

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description's key addition is the save-vs-compile distinction — edits are persisted but inert until compiled. That is real behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not itself restate the PIE refusal, but that is covered richly in the force parameter description.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences carry purpose and the compile caveat, followed by a compact return-shape line. Nothing is padded, and the most important constraint (no recompile) comes first. Slightly dense but every element earns its place.

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?

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies both the post-save compile requirement and the return shape ({ node_id, node_class, graph_name, pins[], saved }), while annotations and the schema cover safety and the PIE/force guard. An agent has everything needed to call it and follow up 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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter including the PIE/force warning and the blueprint_name alias. The description adds only the graph_name/anim_blueprint_path target context at a high level, which matches the baseline for schema-complete tools.

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 and resource ('Place a UAnimGraphNode_* ... into an AnimGraph or a state's inner graph'), naming the exact class family and the two valid target graph kinds. An agent can distinguish it from the many sibling add_* node tools (add_graph_node, add_anim_state, add_pose_search_channel_to_schema) without opening a schema.

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 clear workflow context: it saves the ABP but does NOT recompile, so the agent must call compile_anim_blueprint afterward for runtime effect. That is actionable sequencing guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives it might be confused with (e.g. add_graph_node for Blueprint graphs), so no explicit when-not to use it.

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