create_gameplay_effect_blueprint

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

Annotations only supply the generic readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/destructive flags; the description adds the substantive behavior an agent needs — compile-and-save side effects, refusal during PIE with the concrete failure modes (CheckForWorldGCLeaks Fatal kills the editor; AllowSavingAssetsDuringPIE=0 causes a silent no-write), and the class-mismatch error. One tension worth noting: the annotation declares idempotentHint=false while the description describes repeat calls on an existing GameplayEffect Blueprint as a no-op (created=false), though the create-and-compile framing makes the non-idempotent hint defensible.

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-loads the action and destination, then edge cases, then the return shape — a sensible order with no filler. The first sentence is dense with comma-joined clauses and the trailing 'Returns:' block restates fields already implied, but with no output schema that enumeration earns its place.

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 a mutating, disk-writing, PIE-sensitive tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: creation semantics, overwrite/conflict behavior, the PIE refusal and its override, and a full field list for the response. Nothing material is left to inference.

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 baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond it by stating the composition rule — the asset lands at package_path/name — which the schema alone does not spell out, and it ties the returned asset_path to that same path. The force semantics live in the schema and are not repeated, which is appropriate.

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 Blueprint parented to UGameplayEffect at package_path/name, then compile and save it. That parent-class qualifier cleanly separates it from sibling creators like create_gameplay_ability_blueprint, create_attribute_set_blueprint and generic create_blueprint. An agent knows exactly what asset class it gets without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear operating context: this is refused during PIE, and the force parameter is explicitly framed as an at-your-own-risk override. It also states the precondition that the target path must not hold a Blueprint of a different class. It stops short of naming an alternative tool when the path is occupied or when a non-GameplayEffect Blueprint is wanted, so it is clear but not fully routing.

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