create_behavior_tree

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and operational traits. It only says 'Create a Behavior Tree asset,' which implies a write operation, but does not describe behavior on existing assets, whether it compiles or validates, potential failure modes, or project state requirements. The KB reference is external and not a substitute for inline transparency.

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 concise and well-structured: action sentence, background sentence, parameter list, KB pointer, and example. Each element serves a purpose with no redundant fluff. The KB reference and example are useful additions.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, 1 required) and has an output schema, so return-value documentation is likely covered elsewhere. The description covers parameter semantics and gives an example, but lacks edge-case behavior (e.g., asset name collisions, path validity) and workflow positioning relative to other BT tools. It is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It adds meaning to both parameters: 'name' gets an example ('BT_EnemyAI') and 'path' is described as 'Content browser path'. This is helpful, though 'Content browser path' is somewhat generic and could specify format constraints beyond the schema default.

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?

Description states 'Create a Behavior Tree asset' with a specific verb and resource. It also explains what Behavior Trees are, which grounds the resource in game AI terminology. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like create_bt_task or create_blackboard, but the asset-level scope is clear.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or what precedes/follows it. The example shows a call but does not explain whether to use this before adding tasks/decorators, nor mention any prerequisites. An agent must infer its position in the workflow.

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