ue_bp_add_event_override

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: it returns the node path and pins, notes this is the only way to reference the node, and clarifies that x/y are purely visual. It also mentions the add-or-find behavior. It doesn't discuss permissions or error cases, but covers essential operational context.

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 moderately sized with a clear first sentence and an Args section. Each sentence adds value, though some detail could be trimmed without losing clarity.

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?

It includes return values, relationship to connect_pins, and references to related tools. In the absence of an output schema, it sufficiently explains the result. Some error scenarios are not covered, but overall it's complete for its complexity.

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 description provides meaningful parameter guidance: blueprint_path examples, event_name with examples and a pointer to ue_bp_list_events, and x/y clarified as visual-only. Since schema has no descriptions, this compensates well.

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 it adds or finds the node of an inherited overridable event in the event graph, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ue_bp_add_custom_event by focusing on overridable inherited events.

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?

It explains the tool is needed to obtain a node path for later use with ue_bp_connect_pins, since the graph doesn't list nodes via Python. It also directs users to ue_bp_list_events for available event names, providing clear context. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions.

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