add_spawn_emitter_at_location_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 what the node is for but does not reveal important side effects such as whether the node is wired to the trigger_event, which graph is modified, whether the Blueprint is saved or compiled, or whether existing nodes are affected. These are significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 with a lead sentence, use-case context, an Args list, a KB reference, and an example. The example is useful because it shows the required blueprint_name format. It is not bloated, though the first sentence and the use-case sentence partially overlap.

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 4-parameter node-add tool with no annotations, the description gives a clear example and covers all parameters, and an output schema exists to define returns. Still, it omits practical behavioral details like graph selection and event wiring, so the agent may not know exactly what changes the call will make in the Blueprint. This leaves a clear but incomplete picture.

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 provide an Args list that adds some meaning: particle_system_path explicitly allows Niagara assets, node_position gives the [X, Y] format, and trigger_event identifies the triggering event. However, the descriptions are terse and do not cover accepted values, path formats, or event name constraints, so the enrichment is only partial.

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 opening sentence uses a specific verb and resource: Add a SpawnEmitterAtLocation node to trigger particle effects in a Blueprint. It further clarifies the use case with explosion effects, dust, and sparks when actors are hit or destroyed, which distinguishes it from sound or actor-spawn siblings. The node type is named explicitly, so there is no ambiguity about what is being added.

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 context: it is from Ch. 6 on sound and particle effects and is used for spawning explosion effects, dust, sparks when actors are hit or destroyed. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as add_spawn_niagara_at_location_node or add_play_sound_at_location_node, nor does it state when not to use this tool. The guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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