add_primary_asset_rule

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

Goes well beyond annotations by disclosing that it writes DefaultGame.ini with no undo, that a failed write surfaces as success=false, that updates reset the base class (UObject default), append directories unless listed, and set priority only when given, and that nothing is rescanned. The annotations already cover destructive/idempotent hints, but these mutation semantics are additional value.

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 purpose first, then behavior, then related tools, then return shape. It is efficient but very dense, packing several distinct behaviors into semicolon-chained clauses, which slightly hurts scanability.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description supplies the return shape ({ type, base_class, saved, updated_existing, directory_count, type_count }) plus the required follow-up call and the write/undo caveat. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics: base_class_path omission resets to UObject, directory is appended only if not already listed, and priority is applied only when given. It does not restate the type-name parameter's meaning beyond the schema, so it stops short of 5.

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+resource: 'Add a PrimaryAssetTypesToScan rule to the Asset Manager project settings, or update the rule of that type.' It explicitly routes to the correct siblings (set_primary_asset_cook_rule, remove_primary_asset_rule, get_primary_asset_types), so an agent can distinguish this from them without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use and follow-up guidance ('Nothing is rescanned: run scan_primary_assets so the running Asset Manager registers the assets') and names the adjacent tools for the related operations (cook rules, inverse, list). This is the strongest tier of routing guidance.

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