add_instanced_mesh_add_instance_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what AddInstance does conceptually but omits prerequisites (e.g., blueprint existence, valid component variable), side effects on the graph, and failure modes such as duplicate node creation or validation.

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 reasonably concise, with the purpose front-loaded, followed by an args list, KB reference, and example. The 'From Ch. 19' reference adds context without being excessive; no sentences are wasted.

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?

With an output schema present, return value explanation is not required. However, the description omits prerequisites and behavioral notes (e.g., whether the node is auto-wired, whether it requires an existing Instanced Static Mesh component). For a simple node-adder, it is mostly complete but leaves practical gaps.

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%, yet the description compensates by listing all three args with meaningful one-line meanings: 'Blueprint to add the node to', 'Instanced Static Mesh component variable name', and '[X, Y] graph position'. This adds context beyond the schema's titles and defaults, though more detail could be provided.

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 an AddInstance node for an Instanced Static Mesh component.' It further explains what AddInstance does conceptually, distinguishing it from generic node adders and the sibling add_instanced_static_mesh_component.

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 clear usage context: 'The core of procedural generation' and 'Called in loops to batch-create many instances.' This implies when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or describe when not to use it.

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