ue_bt_add_decorator

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation modifies the asset in-place, requires saving, or is reversible. It only describes the action itself, similar to the 'update_drive' example. The node_path constraint ('cannot be root') is a parameter constraint, not a behavioral trait.

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 front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by a well-organized Args list. Each line adds value, with examples and constraints, and there is no unnecessary fluff.

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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough information to select and invoke it correctly. It covers the purpose and all parameters. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus other BT tools, which would make it more complete.

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 input schema has 0% coverage, leaving the description entirely responsible for explaining parameters. It does so fully: bt_path is described as the path of the Behavior Tree, node_path is described with a clear constraint (cannot be 'root') and examples ('0' or '0.1'), and decorator_class is given concrete examples like 'BTDecorator_Blackboard' and 'BTDecorator_Cooldown'. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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: adding a decorator (condition) to a node's child link in a Behavior Tree. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the mention of 'child link' distinguishes it from sibling tools like ue_bt_add_node or ue_bt_set_node_property.

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 implies usage by explaining what the tool does, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., when to use ue_bt_add_service instead). No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so guidance is only implied.

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