add_is_valid_class_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the mutation ('Add ... node') and the node's runtime behavior ('Returns True if the class is valid'), but does not mention side effects such as blueprint modification persistence, compile/save requirements, or failure behavior for invalid blueprint paths.

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 front-loaded with a one-line purpose, followed by a useful provenance/context, concise args, a KB pointer, and an example. Every line earns its place without redundancy.

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 simple add-node tool, the description covers purpose, args, and example. Gaps include the tool's own return value (output schema not visible), prerequisites (target blueprint must exist), and consequences of adding the node in an existing graph. These are not critical but would improve completeness.

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 compensates by explaining both parameters: blueprint_name is 'Blueprint to add the node to' and node_position is '[X, Y] graph position', reinforced by a concrete example path. It could add format constraints for node_position, but it is adequate.

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 IsValidClass node to check if a class reference is valid.' It further grounds the purpose with a concrete use case: 'Used to validate a Class Reference variable before passing it to SpawnActorFromClass.' This clearly distinguishes it from generic sibling add_is_valid_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?

Clear when-to-use guidance is present via the Ch. 13 context: validate a Class Reference variable before spawning. It does not, however, explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, leaving some routing inference to the agent.

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