add_tree_view

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

Annotations only declare the mutation posture (readOnly=false, destructive=false, not idempotent). The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: it is authoring-only, it wires EntryWidgetClass but cannot assign the native TSlateDelegates callback, and it enumerates the return contract including already_existed and saved/save_error. It also surfaces the PIE-write hazard that the schema reinforces.

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 action, then scope, then return shape. The 'HONEST SCOPE' paragraph is dense but each clause carries real information (what it wires vs. what it cannot). Slightly verbose but nothing is wasted.

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, so the description compensates by enumerating every returned field (widget_blueprint_name, widget_name, tree_view_class, already_existed, entry_widget_class, parent_widget_name?, widget_added, saved, save_error?, note). Combined with the annotations and 100% schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters (including the detailed PIE/force caveat). The description does not add syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Construct a UTreeView... and add it to the tree') and explicitly positions itself relative to siblings add_list_view/add_tile_view. An agent can tell exactly what it produces and how it differs from the list/tile view tools 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 context plus a clear exclusion: populating the tree hierarchy via SetTreeItemsSource and the OnGetItemChildren delegate is 'OUT OF SCOPE' and must be done in the widget BP graph or at runtime in PIE. It names the sibling tools it shares posture with, so routing is unambiguous.

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