add_blend_space_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Add' without explaining side effects such as whether the AnimGraph is mutated and saved, whether the referenced Blend Space asset must already exist, what happens on failure, or whether the operation requires compilation. The KB reference hints at more context but does not itself disclose these behaviors.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. The explanatory sentence about Blend Spaces earns its place by helping with usage, and the Args block plus example are directly useful. There is no fluff or redundant repetition; every sentence contributes.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, return-value documentation is not required. The description covers the key inputs and gives a concrete example, but it omits practical prerequisites such as whether the Animation Blueprint must already exist, what coordinate format node_position expects, and how the node integrates with adjacent AnimGraph nodes. The KB link helps but the description alone is not fully self-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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides per-argument comments like 'Animation Blueprint name', 'Blend Space asset path', and 'Optional graph position', which add some meaning beyond bare titles. However, node_position lacks any format or coordinate system, and anim_blueprint_name is nearly a restatement of the schema title. The example clarifies the expected path style, but the parameter semantics remain thin.

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 first sentence states a specific verb, resource, and target: 'Add a Blend Space node to an Animation Blueprint's AnimGraph.' This is unambiguous and clearly distinguishes the tool from other node-adding siblings like add_sequence_player_node or add_state_machine, which have different purposes. The description leaves no doubt about what the tool does.

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 explains when this tool is relevant: 'Blend Spaces blend animations based on one or two float parameters (e.g., Speed and Direction for a locomotion blend space).' This gives clear context for when to use a Blend Space node. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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