create_gameplay_effect_container

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: an existing asset at the path is returned untouched (already_existed=true), so the agent knows this is an upsert-style create rather than a blind overwrite. That disclosure sits slightly in tension with idempotentHint=false, since returning the existing asset untouched is effectively idempotent, but it is not a hard contradiction. It also enumerates the returned 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?

Three dense sentences with zero filler; the primary action and its naming caveat are front-loaded, followed by the collision behavior and the sibling routing. Every sentence 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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape, and it covers the mutation semantics, the already-exists case, and the sibling needed for an applicable effect. Nothing material for calling this tool correctly 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 name, package_path, duration_policy and duration_magnitude are already documented in the schema. The description references package_path/name composition and echoes duration_policy/duration_magnitude in the return list but adds no format, allowed-value, or interaction detail beyond the schema. 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+resource ('Create and save a native UGameplayEffect asset') and preempts the misleading name by clarifying it is neither a container nor a Blueprint. An agent can distinguish it from create_gameplay_effect_blueprint and other gameplay-effect siblings 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'apply_gameplay_effect needs a class, so use create_gameplay_effect_blueprint for an effect it can apply.' This names the sibling alternative and the condition that selects it, and the already_existed behavior tells the agent what happens on repeat calls.

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