register_gameplay_debugger_category

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

The description asserts the operation happens 'idempotently', but annotations declare idempotentHint=false. This is a direct contradiction of a structured behavioral claim, and the readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=false details are not elaborated in text.

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-loaded with the core action and rationale, and the return shape is appended compactly. The GameplayDebugger.h header reference and console-command aside are slightly parenthetical but still earn their 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?

Covers purpose, the 'only path' rationale, the toggle command, and the return fields, which compensates for the absent output schema. The one real gap is behavioral: the idempotency claim conflicts with the annotations rather than clarifying them.

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%, with the specs array format (actor_class, property_name, color, label) fully documented in the schema, so the description only hints at the specs concept ('data-driven'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 (registers/reconfigures) and resource (a named GameplayDebugger category) and clarifies exactly what backs it (a data-driven FGameplayDebuggerCategory). It also qualifies why it exists (no BlueprintCallable surface elsewhere), making it unmistakable in this large sibling set.

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 niche clearly – it is the only MCP path to author a custom debugger category – and gives the in-game console command to use the result. However, it never explicitly contrasts with the sibling unregister_gameplay_debugger_category or states when-not to use it.

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