add_set_input_mode_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior: input modes, mouse lock modes, flush_input clearing pending input, and a KB reference. However, it does not mention side effects on the blueprint graph, whether the node is auto-connected, permissions/compilation requirements, or result behavior beyond adding the node.

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 with purpose and usage, followed by compact bullets and an example. It is somewhat longer than strictly necessary due to book references and repeated examples, but every section adds useful orientation rather than 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 no-annotation, zero-schema-coverage tool, the description is thorough: it covers all parameters, explains the domain concept, gives practical examples, and points to a KB section. An agent has enough to select and invoke the tool correctly without needing additional context.

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 fully compensate. It does: every parameter is explained, including enum values for input_mode and mouse_lock_mode, the boolean flush_input semantics, the [X, Y] node_position format, and an example blueprint_name path. This is strong compensation for the schema gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Add a Set Input Mode node to control where player input goes.' It clearly names the node type and its purpose, and it is distinguishable from sibling node-adding tools by its focus on input routing to game, UI, or both.

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: 'Essential for pause menus and interactive UI screens,' plus concrete book examples showing when to use UIOnly vs GameOnly. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, so it stops short of a fully explicit routing guide.

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