add_break_struct_node

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Adds' a node and explains the node's internal behavior (exposing member variables), but does not disclose side effects like whether the blueprint is modified, whether compilation is triggered, or prerequisites such as the struct type existing. The example uses an undefined 'Example' struct, which could mislead. This is adequate but not thorough for a mutation tool.

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 a clear opening sentence, an explanatory paragraph, a bulleted Args list, a KB reference, and an example. It is moderately concise, though the Ch. 13 quote and Split Struct Pin note add some length. The essential information is front-loaded and 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 description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and provides an example, but lacks critical contextual details such as prerequisites (e.g., struct must exist in the project), potential failure modes, and what the tool returns (though an output schema exists). Given the simplicity of the tool and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but leaves some gaps that could affect correct usage.

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 compensates by explaining all three parameters: blueprint_name (target blueprint), struct_type (with examples like FVector, FHitResult), and node_position ([X, Y] graph position). It clarifies meaning beyond the schema, though it does not explicitly state that node_position is optional or describe coordinate conventions. Overall it provides substantial semantic value.

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 first sentence clearly states the verb 'Add' and the resource 'Break [StructType] node' with its purpose of extracting member values. It further explains the node's behavior (takes a struct, exposes all members as output pins) and gives a concrete example, making it unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like add_make_struct_node (which constructs structs) or add_break_hit_result_node (specific to HitResult).

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 notes an alternative method (Split Struct Pin) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as add_make_struct_node or add_break_hit_result_node. It implies usage when reading individual fields but lacks clear when-not-to-use guidance or explicit selection criteria among the many add_* node tools.

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