add_dot_product_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the math behavior of the Dot Product node itself, but it does not clarify what the tool call actually does to the blueprint graph (e.g., whether it wires the node between existing pins or just places an unconnected node). The phrase 'between two vectors' is ambiguous because the arguments only include a blueprint name and an optional grid position.

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 well-organized: purpose, math, return semantics, use case, args, knowledge-base pointer, and an example. Every section earns its place, and the primary action is front-loaded.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which can cover return values), the description omits critical operational details—most notably, there are no arguments for the two vectors it claims to connect 'between.' An agent cannot determine from this description whether the tool creates an unconnected node, auto-wires existing pins, or requires additional context. This is a significant completeness gap.

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 does add some value: node_position is marked as 'Optional [X, Y] graph position' and the example shows blueprint_name expects a /Game/... path. However, it is minimal—no coordinate-space details, no handling of invalid paths, and no explanation of how the two vector inputs are specified.

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 Dot Product node.' It further distinguishes this from sibling vector-math nodes by giving the exact formula and the node's return semantics (parallel/perpendicular/opposite). The intended use case ('checking if something is in front of/behind actor') reinforces what this specific node is for.

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 provides a use case ('Useful for checking if something is in front of/behind actor') but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like cross product or other vector nodes. Given the large sibling list of add_*_node tools, this leaves the agent to infer when Dot Product is uniquely appropriate.

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