add_get_up_vector_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 discloses that the tool adds a node and describes the node's return value, but does not mention side effects like blueprint modification, whether compilation is required, or any prerequisites. The mutation behavior is under-disclosed.

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 well-structured: summary, behavioral note, args, KB reference, and example. The 'Ch.14' reference is somewhat cryptic, but the overall length is appropriate and front-loaded.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, the description lacks critical context: whether the blueprint must be open, what the output schema represents, and whether compilation is needed after adding the node. The KB link helps, but the tool cannot be confidently invoked from the description alone.

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's Args section must compensate. It does define blueprint_name as the blueprint name and node_position as an optional [X, Y] graph position, adding meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it omits details like coordinate space, valid ranges, or formatting constraints beyond the example.

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 clearly states the tool adds a 'Get Actor Up Vector' node to a blueprint, and explains what the node does (returns normalized up direction vector). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling node-adding tools like add_get_forward_vector_node or add_get_right_vector_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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides an example and a KB link, but no selection criteria, exclusions, or context for choosing this node over other vector node tools. Usage is only implied.

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