add_get_player_controller_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. It states the action and optional parameters but does not disclose side effects, prerequisites like an existing blueprint graph, or behavior when node_position is omitted. It is at least clear that this mutates a blueprint, but nothing beyond that.

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 action sentence comes first, followed by a scannable argument list, a KB link, and an example. There is no filler.

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 three-parameter, one-required tool with an output schema, the description is moderately complete: it includes an example and KB reference. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance or graph-position format details, an agent still lacks context about prerequisites and where this node addition fits.

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%, and the description supplies only terse per-argument lines. 'player_index (usually 0)' adds context and the example shows the blueprint_name format, but 'node_position: Optional graph position' does not explain the expected array format. This is marginal compensation, not full coverage.

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 identifies the exact operation and resource: adding a 'Get Player Controller' node. This distinguishes it from similar sibling tools like add_get_player_character_node, and the example reinforces the blueprint target.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given; there are no alternatives or conditions to help an agent choose among the many add_*_node siblings. The only context is a KB pointer, which is reference material rather than selection guidance.

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