add_spawn_actor_from_class_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. It discloses that the tool adds a graph node, what inputs the node takes, and that it returns a reference to the spawned actor. It could also mention side effects like whether the Blueprint is saved or compiled, or whether existing graph wiring is affected, but the core behavior is transparent enough for an agent.

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 organized with a clear lead sentence, context, argument list, KB reference, and example. It is slightly verbose with educational context ('From Ch. 3 and Ch. 10') but every section serves a purpose and the key definition is front-loaded.

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 main action, parameters, use cases, and includes a KB pointer and example. However, it does not resolve ambiguity against closely related sibling tools such as add_spawn_actor_node and add_blueprint_spawn_actor_node, and it omits details about graph placement/connection behavior. An agent could still select the wrong tool without more differentiation.

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%, yet the description explains all three parameters in plain language: blueprint_name, actor_class, and node_position. It also adds the useful clarification that actor_class 'can be set via pin' and shows an example invocation. It doesn't specify exact value formats for actor_class (e.g., class path vs. name), but it compensates well for the missing schema descriptions.

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+resource: 'Add a SpawnActorFromClass node to instantiate an Actor at runtime.' It clearly identifies what the tool adds and even describes the node's purpose and return value. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely named siblings like add_spawn_actor_node or add_blueprint_spawn_actor_node, so it falls short of a 5.

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 usage with concrete examples ('spawn enemies, projectiles, pickups, particles, effects') and gives meaningful context. However, it never states when NOT to use this tool or how it compares to alternatives like add_spawn_actor_node, spawn_actor, or add_blueprint_spawn_actor_node. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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