ue_bp_add_node_by_name

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

No annotations are provided, but the description discloses a critical behavioral trait: node names are localized exactly as in the editor (e.g., Italian Branch is 'Utilità|ControlloDiFlusso|Ramo'). It also cautions that names must be exact and pre-searched, making the tool's failure mode clear. However, it does not mention mutation side effects or permissions, but the verb 'Aggiunge' implies modification.

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 compact and front-loaded: first sentence states the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and warnings. It contains no redundant phrases, though it is slightly longer than necessary due to the example and alternative mention.

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?

Despite no output schema and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete for the tool's purpose. It explains the main parameter, gives usage context, and includes a concrete example of localization pitfalls. It lacks explicit instructions for other parameters, but the tool's scope is narrow and the core usage is well covered.

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 adds critical semantics for node_name (must be 'Category|Name' and localized), but does not describe blueprint_path, graph_name, or position. These remaining params are left to inference, though graph_name has a default and position defaults to null.

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 verb ('Aggiunge' = adds), the resource ('un nodo qualunque dalla palette' = any node from the palette), and the format ('Categoria|Nome'). It differentiates from siblings by explicitly labeling itself as the 'Ultima spiaggia' (last resort) for nodes without a dedicated tool, and points to typed tools as alternatives.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use only for nodes lacking a dedicated tool, and avoid if a typed tool exists. It also instructs to search the exact string with ue_bp_list_palette beforehand, and warns that typed tools do not have the localization issue.

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