create_eqs_query

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, closed-world). The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: it states the asset is saved immediately, and it surfaces the already_exists and saved flags, which signal how the tool behaves when an asset with that name is present. Missing are permission requirements and error behavior, so not 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?

Two lines: the purpose sentence is front-loaded, and the return-field enumeration is compact. Nothing is wasted, though the raw field list is a density trade-off rather than polished structure.

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-field list usefully compensates and lets the agent know what a successful call reports. Combined with 100% schema coverage and full annotations, the only real gap is the missing placement in the EQS creation workflow, which keeps it from a 5.

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 both parameters (name, package_path) are documented in the schema, including the default package path. The description adds no syntax, naming constraints, or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: 'Creates and saves an empty EQS asset (UEnvQuery)', and the 'empty' qualifier distinguishes it from the add_eqs_* siblings that populate an existing query. It does not explicitly name a sibling or state the create-then-populate workflow, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is given. With siblings like add_eqs_generator, add_eqs_option, add_eqs_test, and get_eqs_query_info present, the agent must infer that this is the entry point that precedes them, and nothing in the text confirms that ordering or any prerequisites.

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