ue_add_component

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. However, it fails to mention behavioral traits such as whether the component is added in-memory or requires saving, whether duplicates are allowed, or if the blueprint is modified immediately. The description is silent on these aspects, leaving the agent uninformed.

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 a single sentence, making it concise. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. It is front-loaded with the action and resource but lacks structured information. Every word earns its place, but additional context would improve usability without becoming verbose.

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 has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or side effects. For a tool that modifies an asset, the description should disclose that the blueprint is altered and may require saving. The current description leaves significant gaps for effective use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a hint for component_class (StaticMeshComponent or /Script class path) but does not explain blueprint_path or name at all. The description adds minimal value beyond the parameter names, leaving the purpose of each parameter ambiguous.

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 action ('Add a component') and the target resource ('Blueprint'), with specific examples of component types (StaticMeshComponent or /Script class path). While it distinguishes this tool from siblings that perform different operations (e.g., creating blueprints), it could be more precise about the scope (e.g., existing Blueprint assets).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., blueprint must exist), when not to use it, or how it differs from sibling tools like ue_set_blueprint_default. The agent receives no contextual cues for proper invocation.

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