ue_bt_add_service

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It reveals the composite-node constraint but omits key behavioral traits: whether the change is saved, what happens on invalid input, any prerequisites (e.g., loaded asset), or return behavior. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 clear one-line purpose followed by a compact Args list. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or repetition.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the action and parameter semantics adequately, but it doesn't mention return values, error handling, or any pre/post conditions. For a simple add operation this is borderline acceptable, yet some guidance on expected outcome is missing.

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 schema provides 0% coverage, but the Args section compensates well: bt_path defined as 'path del Behavior Tree', node_path given format examples ('root' or '0') plus the composite constraint, and service_class shown with an example ('BTService_DefaultFocus'). This adds real meaning beyond the 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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('Aggiunge') and resource ('service a un nodo composite'), explicitly limiting to Selector/Sequence nodes and excluding tasks. This differentiates it from sibling tools like ue_bt_add_decorator and ue_bt_add_node.

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 clear context: it is for adding services to composite nodes only, with explicit 'solo Selector/Sequence, non i task' and the arg note 'deve essere un nodo composite'. While it doesn't name alternative tools, it offers enough guidance on when to use and when not.

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