add_finish_execute_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose that the tool adds a node and that the node reports task success/failure, and it gives the correct call-site context. However, it does not mention prerequisites, failure behavior, or whether the node is auto-connected to the execution chain.

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 organized and front-loaded: a clear one-line summary, a brief domain rationale, an Args list, a KB reference, and an example. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary, but each section adds useful value for the agent.

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 three parameters, the description provides enough context: what the node is for, when to call it, how to set success, and an example call. An output schema exists, so return value details are not required. A small gap is that it does not explicitly state that the target blueprint must already exist.

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 fully compensates by documenting all three parameters: blueprint_name as a BT Task Blueprint name, success as True/False task result, and node_position as an optional [X, Y] graph position. The example further clarifies the blueprint_name path format.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Add a Finish Execute node to a Behavior Tree Task Blueprint.' It clearly distinguishes this from the many sibling add_*_node tools by naming the exact UE node type and its required context (BTTask Blueprints, end of ReceiveExecute).

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 when to use the tool: 'BTTask Blueprints must call FinishExecute to report success or failure back to the Behavior Tree. Call this at the end of ReceiveExecute.' This gives clear contextual guidance, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state 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.