add_is_valid_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does disclose a key behavioral trait: the node 'Returns Is Valid and Is Not Valid execution pins.' It also explains the safety intent of the node. It does not mention error behavior or side effects on the blueprint graph, but the main observable behavior is covered.

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: a one-sentence summary, a short usage rationale, a compact Args list, a KB pointer, and an example. Each section earns its place and the most important information is 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 simple two-parameter node-adding tool, the description covers the action, use case, arguments, return pins, and an example. It does not describe failure modes or prerequisites such as the Blueprint needing to exist, but the example and KB pointer largely cover the necessary context.

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, and it does with an Args section that explains blueprint_name as the target Blueprint and node_position as an [X, Y] graph position. The example gives a concrete blueprint_name format. It adds meaning beyond the bare schema titles, though it omits optionality details for node_position.

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 IsValid macro node to check if an object reference is valid (non-null).' It clearly states what the tool produces and its purpose. It does not explicitly name or differentiate sibling tools like add_is_valid_class_node, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives clear usage context: 'Used before accessing object references to prevent crashes from accessing null/destroyed actors.' This tells an agent when the node is appropriate. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, but the guidance is specific enough for a 4.

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