add_attach_actor_to_component_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains what the node does, attachment rule semantics, and that weld_simulated_bodies welds physics bodies. While it doesn't explicitly warn that adding a node mutates the Blueprint asset, the 'Blueprint to add the node to' argument makes the mutating nature reasonably clear.

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 well-organized with sections for purpose, attachment rules, args, KB reference, and example. The content is mostly necessary and useful, though the 'From Ch. 15' and KB line add minor context rather than essential invocation details.

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?

The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool: all six parameters are explained, enum values are provided, the node's runtime behavior is clear, and an example call is included. The presence of an output schema covers return values, so no further output documentation is needed.

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 compensates fully by documenting every parameter: blueprint_name, location_rule, rotation_rule, scale_rule, weld_simulated_bodies, and node_position. It also gives the exact enum-style choices for the rule parameters ('KeepRelative', 'KeepWorld', 'SnapToTarget') with their behavioral meanings.

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 states a specific action ('Add an AttachActorToComponent node') and a specific resource ('Blueprint to add the node to'). It further clarifies the node's runtime purpose ('Attaches an actor to a component at runtime') with concrete examples ('weapon pickup, mounting to vehicles'), which distinguishes it from other add-node tools.

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 gives clear usage context: it is 'Used for dynamic attachment' with examples. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it, but the examples and node scope make the intended use clear enough for an agent to select it correctly among many sibling add-node tools.

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