add_line_trace_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly communicates that the tool adds a node and describes the node's runtime behavior (physics collision check), but it does not disclose tool-level side effects such as whether the blueprint asset is saved/compiled, whether the node is left unconnected, or whether existing graph contents are affected.

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 with an intro, purpose sentence, argument list, KB reference, and example. It is moderately sized and front-loads the core action, though the trace_type enumeration and example add necessary detail rather than filler.

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 tool with three parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description is mostly complete: it covers the key parameter semantics and provides an example and KB pointer. It falls short in explaining how this generic add_line_trace_node relates to the many sibling trace-specific tools, and it never states what the tool does to the blueprint graph beyond 'adds a node.'

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 is the primary source of parameter meaning. It compensates reasonably well by explaining trace_type with specific value labels and semantics, giving blueprint_name an example path, and noting node_position is optional. However, node_position's exact format and coordinate meaning remain vague, and blueprint_name's expected path format is only implied by 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 first sentence clearly states the action ('Add a Line Trace node') and the resource (a blueprint node), and the parenthetical 'raycast from point A to point B' further clarifies the node's nature. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like add_line_trace_by_channel_node, even though the trace_type parameter overlaps with those dedicated trace node tools.

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 some usage context ('Useful for hit detection, visibility checks, etc.'), which implies when a line trace node might be needed. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over the many alternative trace node tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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