create_gameplay_cue_notify_actor

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

With annotations already covering safety (readOnly false, destructive false, openWorld false), the description adds valuable behavioral detail: it compiles and saves, reports created/already_existed flags, writes a registered cue tag to the CDO (with cue_tag_set=false for unregistered tags), and is refused during PIE with concrete failure modes. However, the reuse semantics somewhat tension with the idempotentHint=false annotation, though it is not an outright contradiction.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the Returns object is listed compactly at the end. The main sentence is long and semicolon-heavy, but every clause contributes necessary detail about creation, reuse, errors, cue tag behavior, and PIE refusal. Slightly dense but efficient.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description enumerates the full return shape (name, asset_path, generated_class, cue_tag_set, etc.). It covers creation, reuse, class mismatch errors, cue tag registration outcomes, and the PIE restriction. For a 4-parameter mutation tool with annotations, nothing critical is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that gameplay_cue_tag is written to the CDO and that an unregistered tag yields cue_tag_set=false rather than an error. It does not further clarify force or package_path defaults, which the schema already fully documents.

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), a precise resource (Blueprint parented to AGameplayCueNotify_Actor), and the package_path/name destination. It also distinguishes the reuse case. It does not name the sibling cue creators (burst/looping/static), but the parent class name uniquely identifies it among them.

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?

Explains the reuse path ('or reuse the one of that class already there') and a hard error condition ('a Blueprint of another class there is an error'), plus a when-not restriction ('Refused during PIE'). It does not explicitly compare against the other gameplay cue notify creation tools, but gives clear operational context.

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