bp_add_bp_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful preconditions (variables must pre-exist, functions must be audio-allowlisted) and implies an active Blueprint is required, but says nothing about failure behavior, whether the node is persisted or must be saved/compiled, or permission requirements for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then structured into node kinds and an args list. Every line carries information; the only minor cost is that the args list partly mirrors parameter names already visible in the schema.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained. The description covers all parameters, all four node kinds, and key preconditions, leaving only minor gaps around lifecycle (save/compile) and error behavior for a mutation tool.

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 supply all parameter meaning, and it does: every one of the 7 parameters is described, including the required-for relationships (function_name for CallFunction, event_name for CustomEvent, variable_name for VariableGet/Set) and the role of node_id in later connect/set_pin calls.

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?

States a specific verb (add) and resource (node to the active Blueprint's event graph), then enumerates the four supported node kinds with concrete examples. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar siblings like ms_add_node or ms_add_variable_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 per-kind notes imply when each kind applies (VariableGet/VariableSet require a pre-existing variable, CallFunction requires an audio-allowlisted function, CustomEvent is user-defined). However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling node-creation tools, and no stated prerequisites such as needing an active/open Blueprint.

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