add_vr_input_action_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 does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the blueprint is auto-compiled, if the node must be placed in a specific graph, or if the blueprint must be a VR pawn). The description does mention node_position, implying placement behavior, and points to a knowledge base, but it lacks explicit statements about consequences or prerequisites. For a simple node addition this is acceptable, but more disclosure (e.g., 'requires an open Blueprint') would earn a higher score.

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 clear sections (main purpose, valid actions, axis alternatives, args, KB reference, example). It front-loads the purpose and routes to the alternative early. It is slightly lengthy due to the full list of input actions, but each item serves a purpose. No redundant sentences; it earns its length.

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 tool is moderately complex with 3 parameters and an output schema (which is not shown but exists). The description provides an example, lists valid inputs, and points to a knowledge base. It does not describe the return value, but since an output schema exists, that is not required. Missing prerequisites (e.g., blueprint must be open, VR template needed) are minor given the KB pointer. Overall it's complete enough to call correctly.

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. It does with an Args section explaining each parameter (blueprint_name, input_action, node_position) and lists valid input_action values. It also provides an example path for blueprint_name. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it could be more precise about node_position coordinate system or blueprint name format.

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 explicitly states 'Add a VR input action event node to a Blueprint' – a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from add_blueprint_input_action_node by explicitly naming it as the tool to use for VR axis inputs, and provides a curated list of valid VR input action names, so an agent can immediately tell this tool apart from its siblings and know exactly what it does.

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 explicit guidance on when NOT to use this tool: 'VR axis inputs (use add_blueprint_input_action_node for these)' – a clear directive to an alternative. It also enumerates the specific button actions this tool handles, so the agent knows the precise use case. This goes beyond implied context and fully routes the agent.

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