Compile a UCameraRigAsset in Unreal Engine to generate its runtime data. Provide the /Game/ asset path to build the camera rig and report the resulting build status.
Builds a UCameraRigAsset (UCameraRigAsset::BuildCameraRig) and reports the resulting build status.
Returns: { camera_rig_path, built, build_status }
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| camera_rig_path | Yes | /Game/... path to the UCameraRigAsset (required) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the write/overwrite risk is covered by structured data. The description adds useful context by saying it reports build status and naming the return fields, but it does not say whether repeated builds overwrite prior compiled data or what state the asset must be in. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.
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?
Two sentences with no filler: the action is front-loaded and the return shape follows immediately, which is valuable since no output schema exists. Nothing is padded or repeated.
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?
For a one-parameter mutation tool whose annotations already declare the destructive/non-idempotent profile, and with the return payload spelled out in the description, coverage is nearly complete. A note on prerequisites or repeated-build behavior would close the remaining gap.
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% and the single parameter is fully documented there as the /Game/... path. The description adds nothing about path format, validity, or what happens if the path targets a non-existent asset, so it merely meets the baseline when the schema does the work.
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 ('Builds a UCameraRigAsset') and even names the underlying engine entry point, so the action is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from nearby camera-rig siblings such as create_camera_rig_asset or set_camera_rig_root_node, which an agent must still disambiguate on its own.
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?
There is no statement of when to invoke this build versus creating, editing, or inspecting a rig asset, and no prerequisites (e.g., asset must already exist at the given path). Among a very large camera-rig sibling set, the agent gets no routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.