add_set_actor_location_node

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the direct-set behavior and the optional graph position, but it does not explicitly state that this modifies/creates a node in a Blueprint graph, whether the asset is saved/compiled, or that runtime teleportation only happens when the graph executes. That is partial transparency, not a contradiction.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a short usage note, args, KB link, and example. Every section earns its place and there is no redundant 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 two-parameter node-adding tool, the description provides purpose, the key alternative, parameter meanings, a KB pointer, and an example; output schema exists so return values need not be described. It is slightly incomplete around graph-mutation side effects and prerequisites, but overall it gives an agent enough to call it correctly.

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 compensates by explaining blueprint_name as a Blueprint name (with a path example) and node_position as 'Optional [X, Y] graph position.' This adds meaning beyond the raw schema. It could go further by explaining the coordinate space of node_position, but the essential invocation semantics are present.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Add a Set Actor Location node to teleport an actor to a new Vector.' It also distinguishes this from the relative-move sibling by saying 'use AddActorWorldOffset for relative moves,' so an agent can tell it apart from nearby add_*_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?

It gives an explicit selection rule: 'Sets New Location directly; use AddActorWorldOffset for relative moves.' This tells the agent when to use this tool and when to prefer the sibling, leaving little to inference. The example further clarifies the expected blueprint_name argument.

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