create_force_feedback_effect

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's idempotency note is corroborating rather than new. But it adds genuine context beyond annotations: 'NewObject + save' mechanics and, importantly, that the created effect is seeded with one default FForceFeedbackChannelDetails so it is non-empty and meaningful. That seeding behavior is not derivable from structured fields.

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 behavior, then a structured returns block. Every sentence is substantive. The returns enumeration is somewhat long but justified given no output schema exists to carry it.

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 usefully enumerates return fields (including already_existed and created), and it covers purpose, seeding behavior, and idempotency. It is nearly complete; the only gap is absent usage/routing guidance relative to siblings, which is minor for a self-contained create 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (name, package_path) are already documented with examples and defaults in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema 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 and resource: 'Create a UForceFeedbackEffect data asset'. The asset type is highly specific and unambiguous, distinguishing it from the many other sibling create_* tools. No ambiguity about what is produced.

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?

Usage is implied by the create verb and the idempotency note ('if the asset already exists it is loaded and returned'), which tells the agent it's safe to call regardless of prior state. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or names any alternative/sibling, leaving routing to inference.

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