create_actor_action_utility

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

Annotations only cover safety flags (readOnly/destructive/idempotent), while the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: an existing Blueprint at the path is returned unchanged regardless of parent, and a failed save only sets saved=false rather than erroring. It also flags the PIE refusal. Some of the PIE detail is duplicated in the force param, keeping this from a 5.

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 core is front-loaded in one dense but efficient sentence. The trailing 'Returns: success or error payload' is vague and slightly conflicts with the earlier enumerated return fields (asset_path, created, already_existed, saved), making the end feel redundant rather than additive.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return fields, and it covers creation semantics, idempotency, partial-failure behavior, and the PIE restriction. It is nearly complete for a mutating tool; only the vague duplicate 'Returns' line slightly muddies the return contract.

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 package_path, name, and force in detail. The description only echoes 'unless force' and does not add syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 chain (create, compile, save) plus the exact resource (a Blueprint parented to UActorActionUtility) and the observable outcome (CallInEditor functions become right-click actions on level actors). The parent-class framing lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like create_asset_action_utility without opening schemas.

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 clear context ('right-click actions on level actors') and an explicit exclusion ('Refused during PIE unless force'), which routes the agent away from an unsafe call. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative or the conditions that would select one.

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