ue_bt_set_node_property

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals an important, non-obvious behavior: automatic handling of blackboard-bindable fields (e.g., FValueOrBBKey_Float) and writes to the fixed default value. This is valuable transparency, though it does not cover all potential side effects, return values, or error conditions.

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. The main action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a brief note on special behavior, and then a clean argument list. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and lack of output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it does, special blackboard behavior, and parameter meanings. It could be more complete by adding concrete examples or edge-case notes, but it is sufficiently detailed for an agent to use the tool correctly in most cases.

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%, but the description compensates by listing all four arguments with brief explanations. For instance, node_path is described as 'root' or a path like '0.1', and value is said to follow the rules of ue_set_actor_property. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, even if value's description relies on external knowledge.

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: 'Imposta una proprietà su un nodo del Behavior Tree' (sets a property on a Behavior Tree node). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like ue_set_actor_property or ue_pcg_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 explains a key usage nuance: it handles blackboard-bindable fields automatically by writing to the default value instead of the blackboard key. It also references that 'value' follows the rules of ue_set_actor_property, giving context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions.

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