Compile a UStateTree asset through the editor subsystem to validate it and report success status alongside error and warning counts.
Compile a UStateTree via the editor subsystem (validate + compile); reports success and error/warning counts.
Returns: { tree_path, compiled, error_count, warning_count, message_count, saved }
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tree_path | Yes | Asset path to the UStateTree |
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 safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds that it reports success plus error/warning counts, and the 'saved' field in the return hints the asset may be persisted, which is useful side-effect context, but it doesn't state whether compilation mutates the on-disk asset or how the editor subsystem must be initialized.
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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a compact Returns block. With no output schema present, that Returns block earns its place by exposing the result shape, and there is no filler.
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 single-parameter compile tool with annotations covering the mutation profile and an embedded return shape, the definition is largely complete. A note on whether it saves automatically versus only compiling in memory would close the remaining gap implied by the ambiguous 'saved' field.
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% for the single tree_path parameter, so the schema already documents it fully and the description adds nothing about the parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 (compile) and resource (UStateTree), and the parenthetical '(validate + compile)' usefully signals that it subsumes validation, distinguishing it from the sibling validate_state_tree. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.
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 '(validate + compile)' phrase implies this is the tool to use when you want a full validation-and-build pass rather than validate_state_tree alone, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite (e.g. asset must be loaded/open) guidance. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.