create_functional_test

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), and the description adds the return payload, including already_existed and saved, which usefully qualifies the non-idempotent hint by telling the agent a re-run won't blindly overwrite. It omits any note about asset-name collisions or error behavior, and relies on the schema's force param to disclose the PIE-refusal hazard.

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 tight sentences: the action and its canonical-pattern rationale come first, the return shape second. Every clause earns its place, though the inline return list is slightly dense.

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?

For an asset-creation tool with annotations present and no output schema, the description supplies the return fields the agent otherwise couldn't know and frames the asset semantics. It falls short only on failure/collision behavior, which is minor given the schema already documents the force override.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema (including the detailed force/PIE caveat). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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) and resource (a Blueprint subclass of AFunctionalTest) plus the side-effect (and save it), and the parenthetical clarifies the canonical UE pattern so an agent knows exactly what artifact results. No sibling competes for this exact create-a-functional-test action, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies the scenario ('multiplayer-friendly, Blueprint-scriptable test actor') but never states when to choose this over analogous tools such as run_functional_test_in_pie, run_automation_test, or create_blueprint. Usage must be inferred from the resource name.

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