add_component_to_blueprint

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

With zero annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it only partially does: it discloses that transforms are Relative and lists valid component classes. It omits operational consequences — whether the blueprint must be loaded, whether the change persists or needs save_blueprint/compile_blueprint afterward, and failure behavior. The example is actively misleading: component_type='Actor' contradicts the listed component classes (StaticMeshComponent, CameraComponent, etc.), undermining an agent's trust in valid values.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded, followed by a clean Args block, KB pointer, and example. The Args section partially duplicates the schema but earns its place by adding semantics the schema lacks. The misleading example and slightly redundant param re-listing keep it from a 5.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is thin: it does not clarify preconditions (loaded/saved blueprint), post-conditions (persistence, compilation), the meaning of component_properties, or how this differs from add_component_to_blueprint_actor. The output schema covers return format, so that omission is acceptable, but operational context is not adequately supplied.

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 for most params: component_type gains a list of valid classes, and location/rotation/scale gain 'Relative' plus coordinate-order semantics ([X,Y,Z], [Pitch,Yaw,Roll]) that the bare schema titles lack. component_properties remains vague as just 'Additional properties dict', which is the main gap.

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 opening line 'Add a component to an existing Blueprint' states a specific verb and resource, and 'existing' correctly signals this mutates an existing asset rather than creating one. However, it does not differentiate from the near-twin sibling add_component_to_blueprint_actor, which could plausibly satisfy the same intent, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. The KB pointer and example show how to invoke the tool but not when it is the right choice over siblings such as add_component_to_blueprint_actor, bp_copy_component, or set_component_property.

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