add_blueprint_for_each_loop_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose genuinely useful structural behavior: the six pins with their types (wildcard array, exec, int) and the returned dict keys. But as a mutation tool it never states what adding the node does to the graph (node count growth, exec-chain placement, whether a compile is needed afterward), and blueprint_name is labeled 'Asset name' while the example shows a full asset path — an unaddressed inconsistency.

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 layout is exemplary: one-sentence summary up front, then compact labeled sections for pins, args, returns, KB link, and a runnable example. Every line earns its place and the structure is scannable for an LLM. No filler or repetition of the schema.

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 mechanics are complete — output schema exists and the description even pre-states the return keys, all params are documented, and a KB pointer plus example anchor usage. What's missing is the selection context: in a namespace with ~130 sibling add-node tools including a near-duplicate, the description never explains why this tool exists or when to pick it over add_for_each_loop_node. That gap is material for correct invocation.

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 fully compensates by documenting all three parameters: blueprint_name (with the example clarifying path format), graph_name (default 'EventGraph'), and node_position (optional [X, Y] format). The only blemish is the 'Asset name' vs full asset path discrepancy between the arg line and the example.

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 a ForEachLoop macro node to a Blueprint graph.' The pin listing reinforces what the node contains, and the 'macro' qualifier hints at the distinction from a plain loop node. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from near-twin siblings like add_for_each_loop_node or add_blueprint_for_loop_with_break_node, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative loop-node tools despite a crowded sibling family (add_for_each_loop_node, add_while_loop_node, add_blueprint_for_loop_node, add_blueprint_for_loop_with_break_node). An agent picking between these near-identical names gets zero steer from the description. The example and KB reference help operationally but not selection-wise.

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