add_input_action_event_node

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

Goes beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false) by disclosing that it compiles the Blueprint, that the node silently never fires under Enhanced Input, and that input_action_name is not validated so a typo yields a dead node. It omits the PIE-refusal / fatal-GC behavior, but that detail lives in the force param schema, so the description still carries solid behavioral context.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the critical Enhanced Input warning before the return shape. The returns block is lengthy, but justified by the absence of an output schema; overall it earns most of its length.

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 an 8-param mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the return field list, the Enhanced Input incompatibility, and the validation caveat. The main remaining gap is that PIE-blocking/write-refusal behavior is only in the schema, not the description, but the tool is otherwise well covered.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters. The description restates only that the node binds to an action mapping name and that the name is unvalidated — which the schema also says. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource (add the legacy InputAction event node, UK2Node_InputAction, bound to a mapping name) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling add_enhanced_input_action_node. An agent can tell instantly which node type this creates and when it is the wrong one.

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?

Explicit when-to-use (only on a project still using legacy input mappings) and when-not (UE5/Enhanced Input projects, where it compiles clean and never runs), with the correct alternative tool named. Nothing is left to inference.

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