add_motion_controller_component

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does substantial work: it explains that Motion Controller components 'track the physical VR controller position and rotation in real-time,' and specifies render behavior via display_device_model and is_aim_controller ('If True, hide device model'). It does not disclose side effects like duplicate component handling or whether the Blueprint must be saved/compiled afterward, but the core mutation is clear.

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-sentence purpose, then uses compact bullet lists for controller pair context, MotionSource values, and Args. The KB pointer and concrete example add value without bloating the text.

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 covers all five parameters, gives a concrete example, and references KB documentation for deeper context. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, though it omits post-add behaviors (save/compile requirements, duplicate component_name behavior) and does not route around generic component-add siblings.

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 Args section must compensate, and it does: every parameter (blueprint_name, component_name, motion_source, display_device_model, is_aim_controller) gets a plain-language definition. MotionSource enumerates allowed values, and is_aim_controller's 'hide device model' behavior adds meaning beyond the boolean title.

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 Motion Controller component to a Blueprint,' making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It names the component type and target asset, and the VR-controller context further clarifies what the component does. It does not explicitly contrast with generic sibling add_component_to_blueprint, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 implies when to use it (when a Blueprint needs VR controller tracking) and provides useful domain context ('The VR template uses pairs of controllers'), but it never states when to prefer this tool over generic add_component_to_blueprint or add_component_to_blueprint_actor. There are no exclusions or alternative routing, so an agent must infer the choice from the specialized name and context.

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