bp_add_variable

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies mutation ('Add') but does not disclose side effects like asset modification, compilation, failure modes, or prerequisites. Returns JSON but lacks error details, duplicate variable behavior, or invalid type handling.

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 structured with clear sections (purpose, types, args, returns, example), but is verbose and contains a misleading example: variable_type='ExampleName' which is not a valid type. It could be trimmed and corrected.

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?

Provides return format, KB reference, and an example, but lacks error handling, prerequisites (blueprint existence), and duplicate variable behavior. For a mutation tool with no annotations, more behavioral context is needed.

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 has 0% coverage, so the description is the sole source. It describes each parameter: blueprint_name, variable_name, variable_type with a full list of supported types, default_value, is_exposed with explanation of BlueprintVisible+EditAnywhere, and category with default. This adds significant meaning beyond schema titles.

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?

States a specific action 'Add a member variable to a Blueprint with full type support' with clear verb and resource. Lists supported types, which helps scope the operation. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like add_blueprint_variable, so it is not a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as add_blueprint_variable, add_array_variable, or add_map_variable. The description only gives follow-up steps for placing nodes, not selection criteria. No exclusions or alternative mentions.

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