add_get_owner_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains what the node does, how optional casting works, where it is placed via node_position, and provides a concrete example. It does not detail post-add effects like compilation or persistence, but the add-node operation is simple and clearly described.

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-structured: purpose sentence, context quote, Args list, KB pointer, and example. Every section earns its place, and the key behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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-adding tool with an output schema, the description covers all invocation essentials: target blueprint, optional cast behavior, graph position, a KB reference, and an example. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 fully with an Args block explaining blueprint_name, cast_to_class (including 'Empty = no cast'), and node_position format. This adds meaning well beyond the raw schema fields.

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 GetOwner node to retrieve the Actor that owns this component.' It clearly identifies what the node does, where it applies (component Blueprint), and differentiates itself from sibling 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?

The description gives a clear context: 'When scripting inside a component Blueprint, GetOwner returns a reference to the Actor that has this component added to it.' It implies the intended use case without explicitly naming alternatives or exclusions, which fits a well-scoped node-insertion tool.

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