add_blueprint_comment_node

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation adds a non-logic comment box, explains its visual purpose, documents defaults, and states the return dict shape. It does not cover failure modes or whether the target graph must already exist, so not a 5.

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?

Well-structured with an action summary, short rationale, Args list, Returns list, KB pointer, and example. Each section earns its place and no redundant prose is present.

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?

Despite 7 parameters and no annotations, the description provides enough for an agent to call the tool correctly: all parameters are explained, defaults are shown, the return shape is listed, and a concrete example path is included.

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%, but the Args section compensates fully: every parameter gets a plain-language meaning, default, unit, or format, including color ranges and the [X, Y] node position convention.

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 ('Add') and resource ('comment box (UEdGraphNode_Comment) to a Blueprint graph'). Clarifies that comment boxes are visual organizers and do not affect logic, which differentiates this from the many other add_blueprint_node-style siblings.

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 clear context: use this when you need a visual comment/grouping box in a Blueprint graph. Explicitly notes that it does not affect logic, implying it should not be used for behavior changes. Does not name alternative tools explicitly, so it misses the top score.

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