add_get_variant_sets_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It states that the tool adds a node, but does not disclose side effects such as whether the blueprint must already exist, whether the node is automatically connected, whether the operation is idempotent, or whether the blueprint asset is saved. The Args section describes parameters, not behavior beyond the basic mutation.

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 first, then usage context, then parameters, then KB reference and example. It is not overly verbose, though the Args section partially duplicates schema information. The front-loaded purpose sentence ensures an agent quickly understands the tool.

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?

The description provides a useful usage context, parameter explanations, a KB reference, and an example, and an output schema exists so return values are covered. However, it does not state prerequisites (e.g., existing blueprint or Level Variant Sets asset) or what happens to existing nodes, leaving some gaps for a tool with no annotation support. For a simple add-node operation it is mostly adequate but not exhaustive.

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 with an explicit Args block explaining each parameter: 'blueprint_name: Blueprint to add the node to', 'lvs_variable: Level Variant Sets variable name', and 'node_position: [X, Y] graph position'. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema titles and defaults. An example further clarifies usage.

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 GetVariantSets node to get all Variant Sets in a Level Variant Sets asset.' This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from other node-adding tools by naming the exact node type. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides a concrete usage context: 'Used in BP_Configurator to iterate over all Variant Sets and generate tab-style category buttons for each set.' This tells an agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the contextual use case is clear.

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