add_get_actor_of_class_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the node's runtime behavior ('Finds the first actor of the specified class') but does not mention that adding the node modifies the blueprint graph or may imply side effects like requiring a save/compile. The verb 'Add' implies mutation, but the tool's side effects on the asset are not explicitly stated.

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 moderately sized but well-organized with sections (purpose, args, KB reference, example). It front-loads the key purpose first Saturday. The inclusion of a KB pointer and concise example adds value without excessive verbosity, though the 'Ch.3/4' fragment could be clearer.

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 add-node operation with three parameters and an example, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the action, parameter semantics, and a usage example. The output schema exists, so return values are not required in the description. Minor gap: it doesn't explain the coordinate system or handling of null node_position, but the schema default and 'Optional' tag suffice.

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 so with an Args section that explains each parameter: 'Blueprint name', 'Class to search for', 'Optional [X, Y] graph position.' It also provides an example that shows how to specify the blueprint_name. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw property names.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Add a Get Actor Of Class node' and clarifies the behavior: 'returns the first actor found.' This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from other node-adding tools by naming the exact node type.

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?

Provides clear guidance on when to use it: 'Useful for getting a reference to a unique actor like GameMode or PlayerController.' However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as add_get_all_actors_of_class_node or find_actors_by_class, so it lacks explicit exclusions but gives strong contextual signals.

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