add_get_random_reachable_point_node

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavioral context — returns bReachable (bool) and RandomLocation (Vector), and the intended blackboard wiring. But as a mutation tool (adds a node to a blueprint graph), it never mentions the mutation side effect, failure behavior when no valid point is found, or whether prerequisites like a NavMesh must exist. Partial disclosure, not complete.

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?

Front-loaded with a one-line purpose, then organized into short labeled sections (usage, returns, wiring, args, KB, example). Slightly long, but every section earns its place, and the concrete example call adds real selection/invocation value.

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?

An output schema exists (so return values are covered structurally), all three parameters are documented, a KB pointer and a working example are included, and the blackboard wiring is explained. Missing only edge-case behavior (no valid NavMesh point, prerequisites), which is a minor gap for an otherwise complete definition.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly. Each of the three parameters gets plain-language meaning beyond its raw name/type: blueprint_name "usually BTTask Blueprint", radius "Search radius for random point", node_position "Optional [X, Y] graph position". This is exactly the added value the bare schema lacks.

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?

Opens with a specific verb plus resource: "Add a 'Get Random Reachable Point In Radius' node." It then grounds the tool in a concrete scenario (wandering BT task, valid NavMesh location), which sharply distinguishes it from the large family of add_*_node siblings without requiring the schema to be opened.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use it (wandering BT task to find a valid NavMesh location) and even shows the follow-on wiring (SetValueAsVector on blackboard), plus a KB pointer (knowledge_base/04_AI_SYSTEMS.md#overview). It does not, however, name alternatives or state when not to use it, so exclusion guidance is absent.

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