create_curve_table

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

Annotations already declare the write profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description only needs to add context. It usefully discloses that creation and saving are combined in one call and that the result exposes already_exists/saved flags, hinting at collision behavior, but it never states what actually happens when the asset already exists or what the saved package looks like.

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, front-loaded with the core action and resource. The Returns enumeration is long but earns its place because no output schema exists; nothing is redundant with the input 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, documenting the return fields is the right call and the input schema fully covers both parameters. The remaining gap is behavioral: no guidance on overwrite/name-collision semantics or how this table type relates to sibling table-creation tools.

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 both parameters (name and package_path, including the /Game/CurveTables default), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no format, naming-convention, or path-validation detail beyond what the schema already provides, so 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+resource ('Create and save a new UCurveTable asset') and clarifies what the resource is ('a table of named rich-curve rows'), which separates it from plain data/string tables. It does not name or contrast with the nearest siblings (create_composite_curve_table, create_curve_asset), so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as create_curve_asset, create_composite_curve_table, or create_data_table, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the one-line definition.

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