create_align_actors_utility

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that an asset is created, its type, the generated function's exact behavior (copying the first actor's X to all selected actors), and how it is invoked. It omits minor details like overwrite or compile/save behavior, but the core side effects are clear.

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 description is well-structured: purpose, algorithm, usage, args, KB reference, and example. It is longer than a simple tool description, but every section earns its place and the primary purpose is front-loaded.

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?

It covers asset name, asset type, function implementation, user workflow, both parameters, a knowledge-base pointer, and an invocation example. An output schema exists, so return-value details are unnecessary; the only notable omissions are overwrite and compile/save behavior.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It gives one-line meanings for both parameters ('Blueprint name' and 'Content browser folder'), which adds some value over the bare titles, but it does not explain naming constraints, path format, or how the parameters affect the generated asset beyond the obvious.

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?

The description names a precise verb and resource: it creates the BPU_AlignActors ActorActionUtility with an AlignOnXAxis function, and then spells out the exact node graph. This makes it clearly distinct from generic blueprint-creation siblings like create_editor_utility_blueprint.

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?

It provides clear real-world usage context: right-click multiple actors, then Scripted Actor Actions -> AlignOnXAxis. It does not name alternatives or explicitly say when not to use this creator, so it falls short of a full 5, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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