add_set_actor_rotation_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the node being added but does not disclose side effects, such as modifying the blueprint asset, requiring an existing blueprint, or any consequences of placement. Without annotations, this leaves an important transparency gap.

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. The args list, KB pointer, and example are useful, though 'Blueprint name: Blueprint name' is mildly redundant. Overall, it earns its length.

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 simple node-adding operation this is minimally viable: it names the node type, the required parameter, the optional position, and provides an example. Still, it omits prerequisites such as whether the blueprint must already exist, and it does not describe possible failures or the operation's effect on the graph beyond adding the node.

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 explain the parameters, and it does. It identifies blueprint_name as the blueprint and node_position as an optional [X, Y] graph position, and the example gives a concrete blueprint path. This compensates well for the sparse schema documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('Add'), a specific resource ('Set Actor Rotation' node), and its purpose ('assign a new Rotator'). This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling add_*_node tools, such as add_set_actor_location_node or add_set_actor_scale_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?

The description implies when to use it: whenever a Set Actor Rotation node needs to be added to a blueprint. However, it does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or compare it with alternatives like set_actor_property, set_actor_transform, or add_set_actor_location_node.

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