add_spline_component

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It provides useful behavioral context about what a Spline component is, how its points are edited, and that num_points has a minimum of 2. It does not, however, disclose side effects such as whether the Blueprint must be compiled or saved afterward, or how failures are reported.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the Args/Example structure makes the description scannable. The reference to Ch. 19 and the usage note are brief and add context without significant bloat.

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 3-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the target Blueprint, component semantics, point count, a concrete example, and a knowledge-base pointer. It lacks explicit alternative-selection guidance, but for the simple add-component operation it is otherwise sufficiently complete.

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%, but the Args block compensates by documenting all three parameters: blueprint_name identifies the target Blueprint, component_name names the component, and num_points specifies the initial point count with 'minimum 2'. The example adds practical format guidance by showing a content-path string for blueprint_name.

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 'Add a Spline component to a Blueprint', a specific verb-plus-resource statement. It further clarifies that this is the curved-path Spline component by mentioning Level Editor point editing and companion functions GetLocationAtDistanceAlongSpline and GetRotationAtDistanceAlongSpline, which helps distinguish it from spline-mesh or generic component-adding siblings.

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 a clear domain context: 'Used with GetLocationAtDistanceAlongSpline and GetRotationAtDistanceAlongSpline for instance placement.' However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over similar siblings such as add_spline_mesh_component or add_component_to_blueprint, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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