add_blueprint_spawn_actor_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully lists the pins, the return dict keys, a KB reference, and an example. However, the 'Spawns a new actor' phrasing muddles the tool's actual behavior (node placement vs. runtime spawning), and no failure modes or preconditions are disclosed.

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 Args, Returns, KB, and Example sections, and the purpose is front-loaded. It is slightly longer than necessary — the pin enumeration and the 'Spawns a new actor' line add some redundancy — but every section earns its place and the formatting aids scanning.

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?

It has an output schema, so return-value coverage is handled, and the example plus KB link help. But given the extensive sibling overlap, the missing sibling differentiation is a real completeness gap — an agent needs to know when to pick this over add_spawn_actor_from_class_node or add_spawn_actor_node. The pin list and default guidance are otherwise solid.

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 explained: blueprint_name as asset name, actor_class as short class name with an unwired default option, graph_name with its default, and node_position as [X, Y] canvas coordinates. This meaningfully exceeds what the bare schema provides.

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 states a clear verb+resource: 'Add a SpawnActorFromClass node... to a Blueprint graph' and names the exact Unreal node type (K2Node_SpawnActorFromClass). However, it does not differentiate from the near-duplicate sibling add_spawn_actor_from_class_node, and the 'Spawns a new actor' line describes the node's runtime behavior rather than the tool's action, introducing mild ambiguity about whether the tool spawns an actor or places a node.

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 alternative routing, and no exclusions. With a large sibling family including add_spawn_actor_node, add_spawn_actor_from_class_node, spawn_actor, and spawn_blueprint_actor, an agent has no way to tell this tool apart from add_spawn_actor_from_class_node, which appears to do the same thing.

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