add_graph_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals a meaningful dependency: 'Requires the optional C++ plugin for full node type support. Falls back to Python for basic operations.' This explains potential degradation in functionality. However, it does not disclose side effects, return values, or failure modes, which are important 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?

The description is two sentences and immediately states the core action with a noun phrase. Every word contributes: the first sentence defines the purpose, the second provides essential caveats. No filler or 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?

The tool mutates a Blueprint graph and has no output schema or annotations. The description does not mention what the tool returns, whether the blueprint must be loaded/compiled, or what happens if the event graph is missing. While the plugin caveat and schema cover some aspects, important operational details are absent for a mutation tool of moderate complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-related value beyond noting that node type support may be limited without the plugin, which relates to the node_type parameter. It does not clarify coordinate ranges, property formats, or blueprint path expectations beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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: 'Add a node to a Blueprint's event graph.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_blueprint_component and add_blueprint_variable, which target different Blueprint elements. The scope is unambiguous.

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 context about the optional C++ plugin requirement and Python fallback, which implies when the tool may be limited. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like connect_graph_nodes, nor does it mention exclusions such as Blueprint types or unsupported node categories. Usage guidance is present but implicit.

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