add_overlap_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden, and it largely succeeds. It explains the exact structure created (K2Node_ComponentBoundEvent), the UI equivalent, and the per-component GUID behavior where multiple components each receive their own event node. It does not discuss mutation side effects like saving or compiling, but the 'creates/adds' behavior is clearly and usefully specified.

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 and front-loaded: the core action comes first, followed by behavioral detail, a prerequisite pointer, a compact Args section, a KB reference, and a concrete example. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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 provides required parameters, optional parameters, defaults, parameter alternatives, a discovery prerequisite, a KB link, and an example. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not needed. The only completeness gap is the lack of an explicit selection rule versus the sibling tool add_component_overlap_event.

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%, and the description fully compensates. It documents all four parameters: blueprint_name with an example, component_name with an example, event_name with its default and alternate options, and node_position as optional [X, Y] canvas coordinates. This is exactly the semantic content missing from the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Add an OnComponentBeginOverlap event node bound to a SPECIFIC SCS component.' It goes further by naming the exact node type created (K2Node_ComponentBoundEvent) and equating it to clicking the [+] button in the Details panel, so the tool's purpose is unambiguous and distinguishable from generic event-adding 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 gives clear usage context: it is for adding a component-bound overlap event to a specific SCS component, and it explicitly tells the agent to use get_scs_nodes to discover valid component names and GUIDs. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the similar-looking sibling add_component_overlap_event, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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