ue_bp_add_call_function

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states the mutation (adds a node) and the return value (pins). However, it does not disclose potential failure modes, permissions, or side effects like compilation/saving, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary front-loaded, followed by an Args list. Every line contributes useful information with no redundant filler.

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 description covers the tool's purpose and parameters well, but since there is no output schema, the return value ('restituisce i suoi pin') is under-specified. It does not describe the pin structure, error behavior, or any prerequisites for the target graph. These are notable gaps for an agent correctly using the returned pins.

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%, but the description compensates thoroughly. It explains each parameter: blueprint_path ('BluePrint da modificare'), function_path with format and examples, graph_name ('grafo di destinazione'), and position ('solo estetica'). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 a specific action: 'Aggiunge un nodo di chiamata a funzione' (adds a function call node) and mentions returning its pins. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like adding a branch, custom event, or function graph, which are named differently.

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?

Usage context is implied by the description: it is for adding a function call node in a blueprint graph, which differentiates it from adding other node types. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives, so the agent must infer the appropriate context.

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