add_delay_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains the node's runtime semantics as latent and non-blocking, which is useful, but it does not disclose tool side effects such as mutating the Blueprint graph, whether duplicate nodes are created, or whether compilation/saving is required. This is partial disclosure rather than a contradiction.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes a useful Args list, a KB pointer, and an example. There is minor redundancy between the parenthetical 'latent - waits before continuing' and the following 'Delay is a latent node' sentence, but no meaningful filler.

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 straightforward add-node tool with an output schema, the description plus example covers the required inputs and provides a KB pointer. It lacks explicit prerequisites, such as the Blueprint already existing or being open, and node placement context, but these are not critical enough to prevent correct invocation.

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 Args section must compensate. It describes all three parameters: blueprint_name, duration in seconds, and optional node_position. The example provides a concrete asset-path format for blueprint_name, though node_position format could be explained further.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Add a Delay node', and further clarifies that it waits before continuing. It clearly identifies the Delay node type among the many add_* sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name an alternative to distinguish itself from.

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?

It states the intended use case: pausing a Blueprint for a specified duration without blocking the game thread. This gives clear usage context, but it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative node types such as timelines or timers.

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