create_field_system_asset

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds genuine context beyond those: the asset is registered with the asset registry and persisted to disk, so the agent understands the durable side effect. It stops short of stating permissions or failure modes.

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 core action, then the idempotency clause and the return shape. Every sentence carries information, though the em-dash construction and the returns block make it slightly longer than a single tight statement.

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 it is appropriate that the description supplies the return object shape, including the optional save_error. Combined with the registry/disk persistence note, an agent has enough to invoke and interpret the call correctly.

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 both parameters, including the package_path default of /Game/MCP and the field_system_name example. The description only echoes the /Game location and adds no syntax or format detail, 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?

It states a specific verb and resource (create or load a saved UFieldSystem asset) and gives the target path (/Game). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like spawn_field_system_actor, get_field_system_info, and add_field_node, which operate on nodes, actors, or runtime instances rather than saving an asset.

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 description clearly states the load-vs-create condition (existing asset is loaded; otherwise created), which tells the agent what to expect when calling it repeatedly. It does not, however, name any sibling as the alternative for adjacent operations such as adding nodes to the field system.

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