ue_bp_add_function_graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the graph is created empty with default Entry/Return nodes, and internal nodes cannot be manipulated via this tool, requiring manual editing in the Blueprint Editor. This sets accurate expectations, though it does not mention error cases or side effects on existing functions.

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 purpose, a clear limitation note, and an Args block with examples. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy or 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the primary purpose, key limitations, and parameter formats. It does not explain return values or prerequisite conditions (e.g., blueprint existence), but these are secondary given the tool's simplicity and the provided context.

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 descriptions are entirely absent (0% coverage), but the description compensates by providing concrete examples for both parameters: blueprint_path as '/Game/MyGame/BP_Player' and func_name as 'ApriPorta'. This clarifies the expected format and content beyond the bare schema properties.

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's function with the verb 'Crea' and a specific resource (empty function graph with default Entry/Return nodes). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that manipulate nodes or events by focusing on graph creation and explicitly noting that internal nodes are not accessible from here.

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 provides explicit context on when to use this tool: to create an empty function graph. It also states a clear exclusion: internal nodes are not reachable, and the body must be written manually or left empty, implying that node-adding operations belong to other tools. However, it does not name specific alternative tools.

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