add_spawn_actor_node

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes the node spawns an actor at runtime, but does not clarify that the tool's immediate side effect is modifying the blueprint graph rather than actually spawning an actor. It also omits whether compilation or saving is required afterward.

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 reasonably compact and includes useful extras: an Args list, a knowledge-base pointer, and a concrete example. It could drop the slightly redundant runtime-spawn sentence, but overall the structure is clear and scannable.

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?

Given no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is only partially sufficient. It provides an example and KB link, which helps, but it lacks important context about parameter formats, graph insertion behavior, and any side effects. An output schema exists but does not compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

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's parameter notes are minimal. 'Blueprint name' and 'Node Position' are vague, and while actor_class has an example, the example is inconsistent ('BP_Projectile' vs 'Actor'). No path, class-name, or coordinate formats are specified.

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 clearly states the tool adds a 'Spawn Actor from Class' node (SpawnActor) and explains the node's high-level purpose. This is a specific verb + resource, though it does not differentiate from closely related siblings like add_spawn_actor_from_class_node or add_blueprint_spawn_actor_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 explains what the node does but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as spawn_actor, spawn_blueprint_actor, or other add-node tools. There is no when/when-not guidance or mention of prerequisites like having the blueprint open or compiled.

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