add_set_game_paused_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that the tool adds two specific nodes, affects the game tick, and optionally shows the mouse cursor. It does not mention side effects like needing compilation or that the blueprint asset is modified, but the core behavior is transparently described.

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, well-organized, and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args list, KB reference, and example all earn their place without bloat or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 moderate-complexity node-insertion tool with a structured output schema, the description covers the key inputs, intended use, and provides a KB pointer and example. It lacks explicit details about graph wiring or prerequisites, but overall it gives enough context for correct invocation.

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 explicitly explained: blueprint target, paused state, cursor visibility, and node position. The example additionally demonstrates the required argument, leaving little ambiguity for an agent.

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 SetGamePaused + ShowMouseCursor nodes to pause/unpause the game.' It clearly states what the tool does and what outcome the agent should expect, making it easy to distinguish from the many generic blueprint-node tools in the sibling list.

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 provides clear usage context by referencing Ch. 11 (Creating a pause menu) and Ch. 8 (Win screen), and by explaining that it pauses the game tick and optionally shows the cursor for UI interaction. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is specific enough to guide selection.

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