override_interface_member

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint/destructiveHint/readOnly, yet the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: idempotency is surfaced via was_already_overridden, the result 'leaves the Blueprint needing a compile, unsaved,' and it explains why the alternative node approach silently fails. This is exactly the kind of destructive/stateful nuance the annotations cannot convey.

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 purpose sentence, followed by behavioral constraints and a clearly labeled Returns block. The prose is dense and mostly earns its place, though the Returns paragraph is lengthy and borders on re-stating the outcome modes already given in sentence one.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully documents the return shape (kind/created/was_already_overridden/graph_name/node_id) and the compile-required, unsaved state. It is nearly complete for a mutation tool, missing only failure modes such as what happens when member_name resolves to nothing.

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 parameters (including the PIE-refusal force flag, aliases, and ignored fields) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds a return-value mapping but no additional parameter syntax or semantics beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Override a Blueprint interface member or parent virtual by name') and immediately distinguishes the two outcome modes (event override node vs function-override graph). It also differentiates itself from a sibling behavior by warning that hand-placed interface event nodes 'can compile yet never fire,' so an agent can tell this apart from add_custom_event_node/add_component_bound_event without reading 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 a clear selection cue ('Prefer it to hand-placed interface event nodes') and a conditional outcome rule (event when the member returns nothing, function otherwise). It does not, however, disambiguate against the closely related implement_interface_function/implement_interface siblings or suggest listing overridable members first, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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