add_draw_debug_point_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the runtime effect of the node (draws a dot in world space), size units in screen pixels, duration behavior, and optional node position. It does not discuss side effects, failure conditions, or whether the target Blueprint must already exist, but the output schema covers return information.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and organized into a one-line summary, a structured Args list, a KB reference, and an example. Every part adds useful information without redundancy.

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 with an output schema, the description covers the operation, all parameters, provides a KB pointer, and gives a concrete example. The remaining gaps are minor, such as not stating the unit for duration or explicitly noting that blueprint_name must reference an existing Blueprint asset.

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%, and the description compensates by defining all five parameters: blueprint_name with an example path, size in screen pixels, duration as persistence time, color as RGBA, and node_position as an optional graph position. Minor gaps remain, such as no explicit duration unit or color value ranges.

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 verb and resource: 'Add a Draw Debug Point node' and explains its behavior: 'draws a dot in world space.' This distinguishes it as the point variant among siblings like add_draw_debug_line_node and add_draw_debug_sphere_node, but it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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 concrete behavior ('draws a dot in world space') implicitly suggests when an agent should use it, and the example shows a realistic call. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over the line or sphere debug node variants, nor does it mention prerequisites such as the Blueprint needing to exist.

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