add_branch_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose key behavior: the node takes a boolean condition and routes to True/False outputs, and returns a Dict with node_id and pins. It also notes node_position is optional. However, it does not mention that this modifies the blueprint asset (a mutation), any prerequisites like the blueprint being loaded or saved, or potential side effects. It provides some behavioral detail but leaves significant 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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded: a clear summary sentence, then behavioral details, Args, Returns, a KB pointer, and an example. Every section adds value without redundancy. It is concise yet complete for the core information, making it easy 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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown but present), and the description explains the return format (Dict with node_id and pins). It includes a KB reference and a concrete example. For a node-adding tool, this covers the essentials. Minor gaps include not stating whether the blueprint must be loaded or if the operation persists, but these are inferable. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to call 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%, so the description must compensate. It does: the Args section defines blueprint_name as 'Blueprint name' and node_position as 'Optional [X, Y] graph position'. An example clarifies that blueprint_name is an asset path (e.g., '/Game/MCP_Test/BP_Example'). This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare titles and is sufficient for an agent to understand both parameters.

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 Branch (if/else) node to a Blueprint.' It specifies the verb (Add), resource (Branch node), and target (Blueprint), and explains the node's behavior (routes execution to True/False based on a boolean condition). This is specific and distinguishes it from generic node-adders like add_blueprint_function_node or add_math_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes add_blueprint_branch_node and other node-adders, but the description does not reference any alternative or mention when this specific tool is preferred. The only context is the KB reference, which does not address tool selection.

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