add_get_location_at_distance_along_spline_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does convey meaningful behavioral context: the node returns world or local location, coordinate_space accepts 'Local' or 'World', and the target use case is Construction Script placement. But it stays silent on the graph-mutation side effects of inserting the node, whether it auto-connects to anything, and prerequisites such as the blueprint already containing an appropriately named spline component.

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: a purpose line, a behavior/use-case line, a tight Args list, a KB pointer, and a single realistic example. There is no fluff and the example demonstrates the only required parameter. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary, but every section earns its place.

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 moderate-complexity node-addition tool with no annotations, a bare schema (0% description coverage), and an existing output schema, the description covers purpose, use case, all parameters, and includes an example plus a KB reference. The main gap is not routing to the closest sibling, add_get_rotation_at_distance_along_spline_node, which is minor given how explicitly the node's semantics are stated.

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 Args block is the only source of parameter meaning—and it delivers fully. All four parameters are documented: blueprint_name's role, spline_component_variable as a reference name, the exact allowed values for coordinate_space ('Local' or 'World'), and the [X, Y] graph-position format for node_position. The description completely compensates for the empty 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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Add a GetLocationAtDistanceAlongSpline node') and then explains exactly what the node does: 'Returns the world or local location at a specified distance along the spline.' This is specific enough to distinguish it naturally from the near-twin sibling add_get_rotation_at_distance_along_spline_node and from add_get_spline_length_node.

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 gives concrete when-to-use context: 'Used in Construction Script to position instances at regular intervals along the spline path.' This tells an agent the intended scenario clearly. However, it never names alternatives or exclusion cases (e.g., when to prefer the rotation-variant sibling), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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