call_event_dispatcher

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the action is additive ('Add a node') and describes the returned dict with 'node_id', which is useful. However, it does not mention prerequisites such as the dispatcher needing to exist, potential compile requirements, or any side effects beyond the node addition, leaving some behavioral uncertainty 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 organized with a one-sentence summary, Args, Returns, KB link, and a concrete example. Every section serves a purpose and there is no filler. It is slightly more verbose than the minimum needed, but the structure makes the extra detail easy to scan.

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 straightforward node-addition tool, the description covers the core invocation details: the action, all parameters, the optional argument, the return value, and an example. It also points to a knowledge base section for deeper blueprint communication context. It could be more complete with explicit error conditions or prerequisite checks, but nothing essential for a basic call is missing.

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 fully compensates. It explains blueprint_name as 'Blueprint containing the dispatcher', dispatcher_name as 'Name of the event dispatcher', and node_position as 'Optional [X, Y] graph position'. The example call with a full '/Game/...' path adds practical format guidance that the schema does not provide.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Add a 'Call [EventDispatcher]' node to the Blueprint's Event Graph.' This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_event_dispatcher, which creates the dispatcher, and bind_event_to_dispatcher/unbind_event_from_dispatcher, which manage event bindings. The one-line summary leaves no ambiguity about what the tool 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 makes the main use case clear: you use this when you need to place a Call EventDispatcher node in a Blueprint. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it, aside from the implicit contrast with adding or binding dispatchers. The KB reference provides context but no direct 'use this instead of X' guidance.

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