create_bt_decorator

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the creation behavior and the override function, but it does not disclose side effects such as whether existing assets are overwritten, whether the blueprint is saved or compiled, or any required permissions.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by a concise explanation, Args section, KB pointer, and example. It is slightly longer than necessary, but each section adds useful information.

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 simple two-parameter creation tool with an output schema, the description covers the main purpose, parameters, a KB pointer, and an example. It lacks explicit guidance on overwrite behavior, saving/compilation, and the relationship to sibling tools like add_bt_blackboard_decorator, so it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 provides no property descriptions (0% coverage), and the description compensates by documenting 'name' with an example and 'path' as the content browser path. Both parameters are addressed, though path format could be more explicit.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource: 'Create a Behavior Tree Decorator Blueprint.' It also distinguishes this tool from sibling creation tools like create_bt_task and create_bt_service by naming the decorator type and explaining what decorators are.

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 gives clear context for when the tool is relevant by explaining that decorators are conditions attached to BT nodes and by directing the user to override PerformConditionCheck. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for a simple creation tool.

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