add_teleport_node

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses one meaningful behavior: on destination overlap the actor is relocated to a nearby valid location. However, it does not state tool-side effects such as modifying the Blueprint graph, whether the node is created with unpinned inputs, or what the returned node/result looks like.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides a short behavioral comparison, a concrete example, an Args block, and a KB pointer. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary, but each section earns its place and nothing is repetitive.

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 only one required parameter and an output schema, the description covers the key inputs, the use case, and gives a worked example plus KB reference. It is still slightly incomplete about what happens after the node is added (pins/connections, compilation, or return value), but the missing details are not critical for selecting or invoking the tool.

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 compensates by explaining all three parameters: blueprint_name names the target Blueprint, use_self controls the Actor input, and node_position is a graph coordinate. The use_self=false wording ('pass an Actor input') is slightly ambiguous because no actor parameter appears in the schema, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 Teleport node...' and contrasts it with SetActorLocation, so it is clear the tool creates a teleport node rather than a plain movement node. The Ch. 15 context and BP_TeleportPlatform example further anchor what the node does and where it belongs.

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 concrete selection criterion: use the Teleport node when obstacle avoidance matters, 'unlike SetActorLocation' if an obstacle exists. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state 'use X when..., use Y when...', but the comparison and example make the intended context clear.

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