create_struct

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it explains WHY it is idempotent (stale struct deleted and recreated fresh), that a same-path asset of a different type raises an honest error, and what the return payload contains. This goes well past the destructiveHint/idempotentHint flags.

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 short, front-loaded sections with the core action first and a compact Returns line. The parenthetical '(reset_stale:true)' and 'honest error' phrasing are slightly chatty but not wasteful.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the important edge cases (stale-asset overwrite vs type-mismatch error) and even inlines the return shape, leaving nothing an agent needs 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/path/asset_path are already documented in the schema. The description mentions the return keys but adds no new meaning about the parameters themselves, so the 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 ('Create') plus the exact resource and backing class ('Blueprint Struct (UUserDefinedStruct)'), so the agent knows precisely what asset is produced. No sibling struct-creation tool exists, and the named type cleanly separates it from create_blueprint/create_enum.

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 explains the reset+rebuild semantics and the error case, but never states when to choose this tool over sibling creators or what prerequisite state the target path needs. Usage is only implied by the fact that it creates a struct.

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