add_actor_world_offset_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full disclosure. It explains that the node uses Delta Location to modify current location, which is helpful but lacks detail on side effects, persistence, or prerequisites. It does not mention whether the operation is additive, if it requires specific actor settings, or what happens if the blueprint already has a similar node. This is adequate but not comprehensive for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured: purpose, context, arguments, knowledge base reference, and an example. It front-loads the core purpose and avoids redundancy. The only minor issue is that arguments are listed with minimal detail, but overall it is efficient and easy to scan.

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 node-add tool in a large sibling set, the description covers the essential purpose, usage context, parameters, and a usage example. It distinguishes itself from related tools and provides a KB reference for deeper context. It does not mention return values or graph placement behavior, but given an output schema exists and the tool's simplicity, this is largely sufficient.

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 0%, and the description adds only minimal meaning. It restates 'blueprint_name: Blueprint name' and 'node_position: Optional [X, Y] graph position', which barely goes beyond the schema's titles. It does not explain the units, format, or purpose of node_position, nor does it describe the blueprint_name format beyond the example. With zero schema help, this is insufficient for an agent to construct valid parameters.

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?

The description clearly states it adds an 'Add Actor World Offset' node that moves an actor by DeltaLocation Vector. It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly contrasts it with 'SetActorLocation', distinguishing it from a related alternative without needing to inspect the 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?

It provides explicit usage guidance by noting it is 'More appropriate than SetActorLocation for incremental movement each tick.' This gives a clear condition for when to use this tool over a named sibling, though it doesn't list exclusions or other alternatives. The example also reinforces practical use.

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