create_editable_skeleton

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral signal by revealing save status fields (saved, save_error) that show the tool attempts a disk save, but it says nothing about permissions, overwrite behavior, or side effects on existing assets.

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 compact sentences with the action front-loaded and the return contract second; nothing is wasted. It is slightly terse for a creation tool, which keeps it from a 5.

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, and the description compensates by listing the return fields, which is genuinely helpful. However, for a non-idempotent asset-creation operation it omits prerequisites and conflict/overwrite handling, leaving gaps an agent would want filled.

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 source_skeleton (including the default). The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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 (Create), resource (an editable /Game skeleton), and the mechanism (duplicating an engine skeleton), which cleanly separates it from the adjacent create_editable_skeletal_mesh. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it stops just 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?

The 'by duplicating an engine skeleton' phrase implies the intended scenario (bootstrapping a custom skeleton from engine content), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as create_editable_skeletal_mesh. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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