add_direct_blueprint_reference

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does disclose a key behavior: 'is_exposed: Make editable in editor (required to assign via editor).' However, it does not mention whether existing variables are overwritten, if compilation is needed, or possible failure modes. It provides some useful behavioral context but remains incomplete for a mutation tool.

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: a one-sentence action, a brief pattern explanation, a clear Args list, and an example. It is concise with no redundant wording. Every sentence adds value, and the KB reference is a helpful pointer.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (which may explain return values), the description is mostly complete. It includes parameter semantics, a pattern explanation, an example, and a KB link. It lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., blueprint must exist) but is sufficiently detailed 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?

The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description's Args section fully explains each parameter: blueprint_name, target_blueprint, variable_name, and is_exposed. The example further clarifies expected values (e.g., '/Game/MCP_Test/BP_Example'). The description effectively compensates for the schema gap.

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 tool's purpose: 'Add a variable to hold a direct reference to another Blueprint.' It identifies a specific verb (add), resource (variable), and target (direct reference to another Blueprint), distinguishing it from related tools like add_blueprint_self_reference or add_blueprint_variable. The 'Direct Blueprint Communication pattern' label reinforces the intent.

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 the context: 'This is the Direct Blueprint Communication pattern - you store a reference to another actor and call its functions directly.' This implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives like event dispatchers or interfaces. The guidance is clear but lacks exclusions or comparison to siblings.

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