add_construct_object_node

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects. It fails to disclose that adding a node modifies a Blueprint graph, may mutate the asset, or likely requires compilation/saving. It explains the node's runtime purpose, but not the tool's own behavioral consequences.

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 with the core purpose, followed by args, a KB pointer, and an example. Each section is short and earns its place, though the KB reference adds navigation context without bloating the text.

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 purpose, all parameters, and includes an example and a knowledge-base link. However, for a mutation-ish Blueprint-editing tool with no annotations, it omits behavioral context like graph insertion behavior, class path expectations, and what the output represents. It is adequate but not complete.

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 fill the gap. It provides brief parameter explanations and an example that clarifies blueprint_name is an asset path and object_class can be 'Actor'. However, object_class is described merely as 'Class to construct' without specifying accepted formats, and node_position lacks coordinate details.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Add a Construct Object from Class node.' It also clarifies the purpose ('create UObject instances at runtime (non-Actor objects)'), which distinguishes it from actor-spawning tools among the siblings. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative sibling, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 implies when to use the tool via 'Used to create UObject instances at runtime (non-Actor objects).' It gives context and an exclusion, but it does not explicitly say when not to use it or point to an alternative such as spawn-actor node tools. Usage guidance is present but largely implicit.

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