create_asset_action_utility

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false, idempotent=false), and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: reuse semantics for an existing path, that a failed save merely sets saved=false rather than erroring, and the PIE refusal. Minor tension: the 'returned unchanged' behavior reads as reuse/idempotent while idempotentHint is false, though the compile side effect plausibly explains the annotation.

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 creation semantics, then edge behavior, then return fields and the PIE gate. Slightly wasteful: the return values are effectively stated twice ('Returns asset_path, created, already_existed and saved' followed by 'Returns: success or error payload').

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?

There is no output schema, so the inline return summary is necessary and present, and the PIE/force hazard is covered (the schema elaborates it further). The main gap is the lack of sibling differentiation, which matters given the crowded create_*_action_utility / create_editor_utility_* family.

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 force parameter is documented in the schema with far more detail than the description provides. The description only nods at force ('unless force') and adds no syntax or format detail 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 UAssetActionUtility) and the downstream effect (CallInEditor functions become Content Browser right-click actions). That effect cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like create_actor_action_utility or create_editor_utility_blueprint without opening any 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?

The intended use case (building an asset action utility) is implied by the effect it describes, and it does state a relevant edge condition (existing Blueprint returned unchanged) and a runtime gate (refused during PIE unless force). However, it never names or routes to alternatives such as create_actor_action_utility or run_asset_action_utility, so the agent must infer selection from the parent class alone.

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