add_blueprint_event_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return dict (node_id/node_name), the graph_name default, node_position optionality, and an example asset path. However, it says nothing about failure modes (invalid event name, missing blueprint, duplicate event) or whether the event name is validated against the listed set, which matters for a graph-mutating 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 front-loaded with purpose, then organized into clear sections (event names, args, returns, KB ref, example). The common-event list and example are genuinely useful, not filler. Slightly long but each block earns its place.

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-param tool whose output schema (node_id/node_name dict) is described inline, the definition covers purpose, parameters, return format, and usage example, plus a KB pointer. Missing pieces are error/edge-case behavior and whether the target graph must already exist, but nothing essential for a basic call is absent.

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: all four parameters are enumerated with brief meanings, and the example clarifies that blueprint_name expects a full /Game/... path. The main weakness is terseness (e.g., 'Asset name' vs path) and no guidance on node_position coordinate conventions, but overall it compensates well for the empty schema.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Add an event node to a Blueprint graph') and enriches it with a list of common event names and a concrete example with a full asset path. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many sibling tools that also add events (add_custom_event, add_overlap_event, add_hit_event, add_event_dispatcher), so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 common event-name list and graph_name default imply which scenarios apply, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives. With a large cluster of add_*_event siblings, the lack of routing rules (e.g., 'for custom events use add_custom_event instead') leaves selection ambiguous.

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