add_blueprint_enhanced_input_action_node

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the exposed exec and data pins, the accepted action_asset formats, the returned fields, and the fact that wiring is a separate follow-up step. It does not discuss error conditions or side effects like graph modification or compilation, but it provides substantially more behavioral context than a typical tool description.

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 longer than average but every section earns its place: purpose, usage context, asset format examples, post-add workflow, args, returns, KB reference, and a concrete example. It is front-loaded with the core statement and uses structured sections rather than prose bloat.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly. It covers all parameters, explains return values, gives an example, links to KB documentation, and tells the agent what to do after adding the node. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly. The Args section explains blueprint_name, action_asset (with two accepted formats and examples), graph_name (with default 'EventGraph'), and node_position as an optional [X, Y] canvas position. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Add an Enhanced Input Action event node (K2Node_EnhancedInputAction) to a Blueprint graph, wired to the specified UInputAction asset.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and differentiates it from the many sibling add_blueprint_*_node tools by naming the exact node type and the Enhanced Input system.

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 context: 'This is the correct node type for projects using Unreal Engine's Enhanced Input system (which replaces the legacy Input Actions in UE5).' It also provides a follow-up workflow (use connect_blueprint_nodes and get_blueprint_nodes). It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative like add_blueprint_input_action_node, but the Enhanced Input qualification strongly implies when to choose this tool.

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