create_bt_service

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden, and it steps up by explaining the runtime behavior (tick while parent active, override ReceiveTick) beyond the schema. The core side effect, creating a new Blueprint asset, is explicit; it stops short of detailing save/overwrite or naming-collision behavior.

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 content is front-loaded with the action, followed by a compact behavioral explanation, a clean Args block, a knowledge-base pointer, and a minimal example. Every sentence earns its place, and an agent can scan it quickly.

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 creation tool with an output schema and no annotations, this description covers what it does, when to use it, all parameters, and where to find deeper domain knowledge. The schema fills in defaults for path and tick_interval, so an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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%, and the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: name with a concrete example, tick_interval with units (seconds), and path as the content browser location. This adds meaning the bare JSON schema lacks.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Create a Behavior Tree Service Blueprint') and then clarifies what a BT Service is: a node that ticks while its parent is active, used for Blackboard updates. This distinguishes it from sibling creation tools like create_bt_task and create_bt_decorator without needing to name them.

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 usage context: use this when you need a service that periodically updates Blackboard values (perception, distance checks) while a Behavior Tree node is active. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the service lifecycle explanation makes the selection logic apparent.

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