ue_bp_add_variable_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds context about the prerequisite (variable must exist) and the class_path behavior for reading another class's variable. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, error conditions, or whether the blueprint must be saved/recompiled, leaving some 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 compact and well-structured: one introductory sentence plus a bulleted list of arguments with brief explanations. It conveys all necessary information without redundant text, matching the efficiency of high-quality examples.

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 tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description covers prerequisites and all parameters, but does not explain expected return values or failure modes (e.g., what happens if the variable doesn't exist). This is a notable gap for a mutation tool, preventing a higher score.

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 provides a meaningful line for each of the 6 parameters, including the format for position ({x,y} or [x,y]) and the meaning of class_path (empty = current Blueprint). While some entries are terse, this is strong compensation given the schema gap.

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 opens with 'Aggiunge un nodo Get o Set per una variabile membro' (Adds a Get or Set node for a member variable), clearly specifying the verb (adds) and resource (variable node). This is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like ue_bp_add_call_function or ue_bp_add_branch, focusing solely on variable access nodes.

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 explicitly states a prerequisite: the variable must already be created via ue_add_variable. It also clarifies the mode parameter ('get' or 'set'), guiding correct invocation. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or compare it with alternatives for creating other node types, so it falls short of a full 5.

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