blueprint_build_from_json

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose key behavioral aspects: supported node types, optional 'params' key for pin defaults, and the 'nodeId.exec' connection format. However, it does not mention side effects like clearing existing graphs, whether it compiles or saves, or error behavior. The clear_existing parameter is only documented in the schema, not the description.

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 three concise sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, the second lists supported node types, and the third explains two critical formatting details. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains 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 description covers the essential input format (JSON nodes and connections), including supported types and pin wiring. It does not explain the return value or the behavior of clear_existing, but the schema covers clear_existing's default and description. Given the moderate complexity and nested objects, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to construct a valid graph, though more detail on required fields for CallFunction would help.

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 already covers blueprint_path and clear_existing, and nested properties have descriptions. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the supported node types, the structure of the params object ('PinName' keyed defaults), and the exact connection format ('nodeId.exec'). This helps the agent understand how to assemble the graph correctly, going 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 the tool's primary function: 'Builds a Blueprint event graph from a JSON node/connection description.' This is a specific verb (Builds) and resource (Blueprint event graph) with a clear input format (JSON). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning 'event graph' and the JSON source, which differentiates it from anim_blueprint_build_from_json and blueprint_build_from_description.

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 context by specifying supported node types and the JSON format, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like anim_blueprint_build_from_json or blueprint_build_from_description. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided, so the usage context is only implicit.

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