add_blueprint_function_node

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits: the duplicate guard (allow_duplicates=False returns existing node within 32 units), the handling of params values (strings, numbers, booleans), and the return values including was_existing. It also explains the target parameter's fallback behavior (searching the Blueprint's own class hierarchy). No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does so well.

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 well-structured with clear sections for function_name, target, duplicate guard, params, Args, Returns, and an example. It's longer than average but every section adds value. The front-loading is good: the core purpose is stated first, followed by the most important parameter details. The example at the end is helpful. Slightly verbose but justified by the complexity.

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 the tool's complexity (7 params, nested objects, no annotations, 0% schema coverage), the description is quite complete. It covers all parameters, return values, and edge cases (duplicate guard). The KB reference provides additional context. It could be more explicit about when to use this vs. other node-adders, but for the tool's own operation, it's thorough.

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. It does: it explains function_name formats (short name vs full UE path), target ownership, params as pin_name->default_value dict, node_position as [X,Y], and allow_duplicates semantics. It also documents the return dict. The only minor gap is that graph_name default 'EventGraph' is mentioned in Args but not elaborated, and node_position format is only briefly shown.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Add a function-call node to a Blueprint graph.' It specifies the resource (Blueprint graph), the action (add a function-call node), and provides detailed context on how to specify the function (short name or full UE path). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_blueprint_event_node or add_blueprint_variable_get_node, which add different node types.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use this tool, including how to specify function_name and target, and explains the duplicate guard behavior. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for different node types, but the detailed parameter guidance and the KB reference give strong usage context. The sibling list shows many node-adders, but the description doesn't explicitly differentiate from them.

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