add_custom_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a mutation (adds a node) and offers behavioral guidance: 'Inspect existing events first to avoid duplicate event names' and 'then compile and read back after wiring.' This discloses the need for pre-checking and a post-verification step, though it doesn't explicitly discuss side effects or reversibility. Given the tool's additive nature, this is adequate.

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 compact, well-organized with Args, a KB reference, and a concrete example. Every sentence earns its place—no fluff, no redundancy. The example clarifies expected input format.

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 mutation tool, the description covers what, when, how, and gives an example. Since an output schema exists (indicated by 'Has output schema: true'), return values need not be described. All necessary information for correct invocation is present.

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?

The schema has zero descriptions, but the description's Args section fully compensates: 'blueprint_name: Blueprint asset name or path,' 'event_name: Custom event/function name to create,' and 'node_position: Optional [X, Y] graph position.' This adds meaning beyond type/name, making each parameter's purpose clear.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb+resource: 'Add a Custom Event node to a Blueprint event graph.' This precisely identifies the action and target, distinguishing it from general node adders like add_blueprint_event_node (which likely handles standard event nodes). No ambiguity remains about what the tool does.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'Use this for explicit gameplay entry points that will be wired by later graph operations.' It also instructs to 'Inspect existing events first to avoid duplicate event names' and to 'compile and read back after wiring,' giving a clear workflow. It doesn't name alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for correct selection.

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