add_blueprint_input_action_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly states this is a mutation, specifies the return shape ('Dict with node_id'), and provides a KB pointer and example. However, it does not disclose failure behavior for invalid blueprint/graph/action names, whether compilation is triggered, or other graph side effects, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the key non-Enhanced Input distinction, followed by compact Args, Returns, KB, and Example sections. Every line earns its place; there is no filler or redundant restatement.

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 tool with an output schema, this description is complete: required params, optional position, default graph, return type, a KB reference, and a concrete example. The only omitted information is edge-case error behavior, which is less critical for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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%, but the Args block fully compensates by documenting every parameter, including defaults ('graph_name' default 'EventGraph'), optionality ('node_position'), and the expected '[X, Y]' format. The example further demonstrates the call signature and asset-path format.

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 ('Add') and resource ('legacy Input Action event node'), and immediately disambiguates with '(non-Enhanced Input)'. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling add_blueprint_enhanced_input_action_node and the find_blueprint_nodes workflow.

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?

Explicitly directs the agent away from this tool for Enhanced Input actions that already exist, telling it to use find_blueprint_nodes with node_type='input_action' instead. It also labels the tool as legacy/non-Enhanced Input, implying the exclusion. It could be slightly more explicit about the sibling add_blueprint_enhanced_input_action_node for creating new Enhanced Input nodes, so it stops short of a 5.

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