ue_bp_add_branch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only describes the node's structural pins but does not disclose side effects, error conditions, permissions, or what happens to existing graph connections. This leaves significant ambiguity about the tool's behavior beyond the simple act of adding a node.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the core function and pin layout. It is well-structured for quick scanning, though it sacrifices necessary depth for brevity.

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 tool that adds a node to a Blueprint graph, the description omits critical context: which graph is affected, how position is specified, and any prerequisites like an open blueprint. With no output schema or annotations, the description is the only source of information, and it is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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?

The schema has three parameters with zero description coverage, and the description does not compensate. It never explains blueprint_path, graph_name, or position, and the pin names mentioned (Condition, then, else) refer to node pins, not the tool's parameters. The agent gets no help understanding required arguments or their formats.

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 clearly states the tool adds a Branch node (if/then/else) and specifies the pin layout (Condition input, then/else outputs). This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like ue_bp_add_call_function or ue_bp_add_node_by_name, which add different node types.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus other Blueprint node addition tools. It doesn't mention alternatives, prerequisites, or the target graph context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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