add_multi_line_trace_for_objects_node

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the node's return behavior (array of Hit Results), enumerates draw_debug modes, and marks node_position as optional. However, it does not disclose that this mutates a blueprint graph, whether prerequisites like an existing blueprint are required, or error behavior — meaningful gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation support.

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?

Well-structured and front-loaded: one-line summary, behavior statement, compact Args block, KB pointer, and a concrete example. The 'Ch.14:' prefix is cryptic and the Args section partially duplicates schema names, but each block earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 4-parameter tool with an output schema, the essential semantics are covered: all parameters explained, return behavior stated, and a working example given. Missing are prerequisites (blueprint existence), failure behavior, and whether the node is auto-connected — moderate gaps given the absence of annotations and the large ambiguous sibling family.

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. All four parameters are explained: draw_debug gets its full enum of valid values, node_position gets the [X, Y] graph-position format, and object_types gets its tracing purpose. The example adds the full blueprint path format, though blueprint_name's inline description ('Blueprint name') is a tautology only rescued 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Add a node') and identifies the exact node type, with the behavior 'returns all hits for object types' clarifying the multi-line and object-type aspects. It is clear, but sibling differentiation relies on the reader's Unreal context — it never explicitly contrasts with close siblings like add_line_trace_for_objects_node or add_multi_line_trace_by_channel_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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The sibling list contains at least six competing trace-node tools (line/channel/object variants, single vs multi), and the description never names an alternative or states a selection condition. The 'returns all hits' phrase implies a use case but leaves the choice among siblings to inference.

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