add_blueprint_get_component_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behavior: validation against the SimpleConstructionScript, searching inherited C++ component properties, and returning the actual 'component_class'. However, it does not explicitly state the side effect of modifying the blueprint graph or error behavior when a component is not found, though 'if found' on the return value hints at partial failure.

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 into purpose, differentiation, usage timing, args, returns, KB reference, and example. Each section earns its place and there is no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to scan.

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, 2-required node creation tool with no annotations, the description covers the action, when to use it, all parameters, return keys, a KB reference, and a concrete example. The 'if found' qualifier on component_class also communicates partial-failure behavior, making the description sufficient 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 must compensate—and it does. Every parameter is explained with context: blueprint_name as asset name, component_name with concrete examples ('Mesh', 'CapsuleComponent', 'CharacterMovement'), graph_name with default, and node_position as optional canvas position. It also documents the response keys, going beyond the bare 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Add a node that gets a reference to one of the Blueprint's SCS components.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling add_blueprint_get_self_component_reference by explicitly contrasting its validation behavior with the sibling's blind trust of component names, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 an explicit when-to-use condition ('Use this when you know a component was added in the Blueprint editor') and names the alternative tool while explaining the key difference (validation vs. blind trust). This is strong routing guidance for two closely related tools.

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