set_blueprint_breakpoint

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by explaining the idempotency mechanism ('guarded by FindBreakpointForNode') and by documenting the return flags (already_existed, found_in_graph) that tell the caller what actually happened. It does not, however, state what mutation is incurred or any permission/auth requirement.

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 compact sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the return shape appended; nothing is redundant. Slightly dense with the internal PS reference, but no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description inlines the full return shape, and annotations cover safety/idempotency. For a single-node tool this is largely complete; only explicit usage/when-to-use guidance is missing.

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% and the schema itself documents the title-contains match, the blueprint_name alias, and the flexible path resolution. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Set a real debugging breakpoint on a specific node within a blueprint graph') scoped to a node inside a blueprint. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling remove_blueprint_breakpoint and the read-only debug tools. The FKismetDebugUtilities::CreateBreakpoint reference is incidental but does not obscure the purpose.

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 implies the usage context ('real debugging breakpoint') but never explicitly says when to use this versus remove_blueprint_breakpoint, get_blueprint_debug_info, or trace_blueprint_execution, nor any prerequisites (e.g. PIE running). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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