session_create_blueprint_flow

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 mentions adding a node and wiring GetPlayerController(0), but doesn't disclose side effects like whether it modifies the blueprint graph permanently, whether it requires compilation, whether it overwrites existing nodes, or what the output schema contains. The 'async' nature is mentioned but not explained.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action. The KB reference and example are useful. However, the example is somewhat cryptic and the description could be more structured, but it's not bloated.

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?

With 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and a complex blueprint-graph mutation task, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the output schema, the meaning of the boolean flags, or the node_position format. An agent would need to consult the KB or guess.

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 only explains blueprint_name via the example. The other 6 parameters (save, compile, use_lan, node_position, public_connections, use_lobbies_if_available) are completely unexplained in the description, leaving the agent to guess their semantics.

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 states a specific action: 'Add a Create Session async Blueprint node and wire GetPlayerController(0).' This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from generic blueprint node adders. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools like session_find_blueprint_flow, though the 'Create Session async' phrasing makes the domain clear.

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 implies usage context: it's for creating a session blueprint flow, and the example shows how to call it with a blueprint_name. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like session_find_blueprint_flow or other session-related tools, but the 'Create Session' wording provides reasonable implied guidance.

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