unreal_blueprint_pin_preview

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

With all annotations false and no read-only or idempotency hints, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly warns that compilation can fail, edits are retained for Undo/correction, rollback is not guaranteed, and runtime/semantic success is not assured. This goes beyond the structured fields and gives an agent realistic expectations about side effects and risk.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately follows with supported node types and hard constraints. Each sentence adds meaningful context, and the risk warnings are placed after the main usage guidance. It is somewhat dense and could be tightened, but it earns its length.

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 specialized native Blueprint editing/preview tool, the description covers supported nodes, preconditions, constraints, follow-up commit path, failure behavior, and rollback limitations. With an output schema present, the return shape does not need to be explained. Some context is still missing, such as exact tool semantics around the 'preview' edit and how it interacts with the compile receipt, but the essentials are present.

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 for the three required parameters, but it only vaguely references node/pin GUIDs and 'one unconnected literal'. It does not explain what target_id identifies, the expected_state fields, or how the value parameter should be formatted. The mention of supported types and 'no arbitrary expressions' helps slightly, but not enough to make the parameters actionable without opening 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Preview one unconnected bool/int/real input literal on an approved native math node.' It further narrows scope by enumerating the exact supported node types (Add_IntInt, Multiply_IntInt, etc.) and by stating what it does not do ('No new nodes, links, object defaults or arbitrary expressions'). This clearly separates it from inspect, compile, and broader preview siblings.

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 concrete use conditions: the Blueprint must be 'loaded ordinary' and 'approved for compilation', and it instructs the caller to 'Inspect graph node/pin GUIDs first'. It also routes follow-up work to unreal_blueprint_compile. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or list when-not-to-use cases, so it stops 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.