add_construction_script_node

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the Construction Script runs in-editor and at runtime before BeginPlay, which is about the node's lifecycle, not the tool's own side effects. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., blueprint must exist), whether the operation is reversible, or any failure modes. This is adequate but not complete.

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 action line, a brief contextual paragraph, an Args section, a KB reference, and an example. Every section serves a purpose and there is no waste. It is front-loaded with the action and remains concise.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and provides an example. It references a KB for additional depth. Minor gaps: it doesn't explicitly state that the blueprint must exist or that the node is added to the Construction Script graph (though implied), so it's slightly incomplete.

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 explicitly documents both parameters: 'blueprint_name: Blueprint name' and 'node_position: Optional [X, Y] graph position'. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema types, though it could specify more detail (e.g., exact path format), so a 4 is appropriate.

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 'Add a Construction Script event node to a Blueprint' – a specific verb, resource, and target. It distinguishes itself from the many add_*_node siblings by naming the exact event node type. The context about what Construction Script is used for reinforces the purpose.

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 explains when to use it ('Used for procedural setup based on exposed variables') and provides a KB reference for deeper context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like add_construction_script_for_loop, so it lacks the 'when-not' clause that would earn a 5.

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