create_blueprint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly states that the operation creates an asset in a specific directory and returns a dict with 'name' and 'path', which is meaningful. It does not mention potential overwrite behavior or compilation side effects, but the core side effect and expected return are disclosed.

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 compact and well-structured with Args, Returns, KB reference, and Example sections. Every section adds useful information without redundancy or filler, making it easy for an agent to quickly parse.

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?

An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly: required parameters, example, valid parent classes, and the return shape via the output schema and Returns description. The KB reference provides further depth, though some edge-case behavior (e.g., duplicate names) is not addressed, which is acceptable given the output schema and example.

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 fully compensates. It explains 'name' with a concrete example ('BP_MyActor') and lists an extensive set of valid parent classes, adding significant meaning beyond the bare string type definitions in the input schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new Blueprint class in /Game/Blueprints/.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_blueprint_interface, create_blueprint_function_library, or create_character_blueprint by specifying a generic Blueprint class and enumerating broad parent classes such as Actor, Pawn, and Character.

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 provides an example and enumerates valid parent classes, implying when to use it for generic blueprint creation. However, it does not explicitly mention specialized sibling tools or state when a more specific creator (e.g., create_character_blueprint, create_umg_widget_blueprint) should be preferred over this generic one.

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