add_get_actor_location_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral transparency. It discloses that the operation is additive ('Add'), returns a Vector, and uses centimeters in world space. However, it does not mention graph-targeting behavior, failure modes, or what happens when node_position is omitted, leaving some behavior implicit.

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 front-loaded: the main purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by short argument docs, a KB reference, and an example. The Ch.14/Transform note is relevant context about the return type rather than padding.

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 two-parameter node-addition tool, the description covers purpose, parameters, units, an example, and a KB reference, while the output schema covers return values. The main gap is that it does not state which graph the node is added to or how node_position behaves when omitted, so it is not fully complete.

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 provides 'blueprint_name: Blueprint name' and 'node_position: Optional [X,Y] graph position', plus an example with a full asset path. The blueprint_name line adds little beyond the schema title, and the example does not explain accepted formats or defaults beyond the 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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Add a 'Get Actor Location' node') and the result ('returning a Vector (world location)'). It clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes its read-location semantics from write/rotation/scale variants at a semantic level, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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?

'Use this to read where an actor is in world space' gives a clear use case, and the example shows a realistic invocation. It does not list exclusions or alternatives such as add_get_actor_rotation_node, but the context is sufficient to select it for reading actor location.

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