create_blackboard_data

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false and idempotent=true, but the description adds real value: it explains what idempotency concretely means (returns already_exists=true, is not re-saved) and notes that success is contingent on the save succeeding. It does not discuss auth/permissions, but for an editor asset-creation tool the behavioral picture is largely complete.

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 and its critical save constraint, and the idempotency caveat follows immediately. The trailing returns block is somewhat dense but earns its place given there is no output schema.

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 supplies the full return shape (name, package_path, blackboard_path, asset_path, key_count, already_exists, saved, save_error), covering the fields an agent needs to chain into add_blackboard_key. Nothing essential is missing for a two-parameter creation tool.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description echoes the package_path/name composition pattern, adding only marginal detail beyond the schema's own descriptions and default.

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 (create), resource (UBlackboardData asset), and location semantics (at package_path/name) plus the save requirement. An agent can distinguish it from create_behavior_tree, add_blackboard_key, and get_blackboard_data 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?

Names the natural follow-up tool (add_blackboard_key) and describes the idempotent path (an existing blackboard is returned rather than re-saved). It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the routing context is clear.

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