add_enable_disable_input_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains what Enable/Disable Input nodes do and notes that a PlayerController reference is required, which adds useful context. However, it does not disclose side effects on the blueprint graph, whether the node is auto-connected, or how the PlayerController requirement is fulfilled given that no such parameter exists in the schema.

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 structured with a purpose statement, use cases, args, a KB pointer, and an example. It is somewhat longer than strictly necessary, but every section contributes practical value, and the key purpose 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?

The inclusion of use cases, args, example, and a KB reference makes the tool reasonably complete for a simple blueprint-node-addition operation. However, the statement that the node 'Requires passing a PlayerController reference' is not reflected anywhere in the input schema, creating ambiguity about whether the tool handles this automatically or expects additional wiring. This is a notable contextual 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%, but the description's Args section compensates by explaining all three parameters: blueprint_name, enable, and node_position. The meaning of the boolean enable flag and the [X, Y] graph position format are clearly stated, going well beyond the bare schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Add an Enable Input or Disable Input node to control actor input reception.' This clearly identifies the exact node type and its purpose, distinguishing it from sibling tools that add other node kinds or input handling modes.

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 concrete use cases such as disabling input during cutscenes, enabling input near interactive objects, and menu screens disabling game input. These establish when the tool should be used, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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