add_get_data_table_row_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 behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Add') and describes the added node's behavior (returns struct and bool), but it does not clarify the tool's own return value or side effects (e.g., whether the Blueprint asset is modified, saved, or compiled). The phrase 'Returns the row struct and a bool' is ambiguous—it refers to the node, not the tool, which could mislead an agent expecting that output from the tool call.

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 content is well-structured: a one-sentence summary, an optional context note ('From Ch. 13'), a clear list of arguments, a KB reference, and an example. It is slightly heavier than necessary due to the 'From Ch. 13' reference, but every other element earns its place. The example adds practical value 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?

The description covers the core purpose and all parameters, and an output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. However, it does not mention which graph within the Blueprint the node is added to (e.g., event graph by default), potential failure modes (invalid Blueprint name, missing Data Table variable), or whether the tool persists changes. These gaps are noticeable given the tool's mutation nature and no annotations.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining all four parameters: blueprint_name, data_table_variable, row_name, and node_position. Each gets a meaningful one-line description (e.g., 'Data Table asset variable name or path' and '[X, Y] graph position'), which is exactly what an agent needs to populate the arguments. This is a strong example of parameter documentation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Add a GetDataTableRow node to look up a row in a Data Table.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling add-node tools by naming the exact node type and its purpose. The additional context about retrieving a struct by row name and returning a bool further eliminates ambiguity.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need to insert a GetDataTableRow node into a Blueprint for row lookup. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions (e.g., when to use a different data-table node or direct data retrieval). Usage context is inferable but not explicitly guided.

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