add_play_sound_at_location_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation adds a node, but it does not mention whether the blueprint is saved/compiled, whether the sound asset must already exist, what side effects occur, or whether the operation is reversible. For a mutating blueprint tool, these gaps are significant.

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 the primary action and contains a compact, scannable arg list, a KB pointer, and a minimal example. The chapter reference adds mild context but does not bloat the description.

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 the purpose, all parameters, and an example, and an output schema exists. However, it omits usage alternatives and behavioral side effects/preconditions, which matters more because there are no annotations. It is adequate for a basic call but not fully complete.

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 compensates by explaining every parameter, including volume/pitch normal values, a concrete sound asset path example, and the node_position format. Minor gaps remain, such as the practical meaning of the empty default for sound_asset_path.

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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Add a PlaySoundAtLocation node to a Blueprint' and explains what the node does at runtime. It is specific enough to distinguish the operation from generic node-adders, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like add_play_sound_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?

Beyond 'for audio feedback' and a chapter reference, there is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as add_play_sound_node or wire_play_sound_to_blueprint. No prerequisites, exclusions, or workflow context are provided.

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