add_delete_save_game_in_slot_node

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states the tool 'Add a DeleteGameInSlot node to reset/clear the save file' but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing nodes, requiring blueprint compilation, or needing specific permissions). For a mutation tool, this is a moderate gap, though the action itself is straightforward.

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 efficient: it opens with the purpose, provides context, lists parameters in a structured block, and includes a KB reference and example. No wasted words; every line contributes to understanding the tool.

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 node-addition tool, the description covers purpose, usage context, parameters, and an example. An output schema exists (though not shown), so return values are not required in the description. It does not mention prerequisites like the blueprint existing or the node's placement in the graph, but the example and arg list provide enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, but the description explicitly lists all four parameters with concise explanations: blueprint_name (target), slot_name_variable (variable name), user_index (player index), and node_position ([X, Y] graph position). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions and adds practical meaning.

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 the action ('Add a DeleteGameInSlot node') and its purpose ('reset/clear the save file'), distinguishing it from sibling node-adding tools like add_save_game_to_slot_node or add_load_game_from_slot_node. It is specific about the resource and what it accomplishes.

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 gives an explicit use case ('Use this to implement a 'New Game' or 'Reset Progress' button') and cites a chapter reference (Ch. 11) for context. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, but the provided use case is clear and actionable.

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