create_bt_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the creation action and the need to override ExecuteTask/FinishExecute, but doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., whether it compiles the blueprint, whether it opens the editor, whether it overwrites existing assets), required permissions, or what happens on failure. The KB reference is a pointer but not inline behavioral disclosure.

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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The KB reference and example are useful, though the example is somewhat redundant with the parameter list. No wasted sentences, but the structure could be tighter by integrating the example with the parameter explanations.

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 description covers the core purpose and parameters, and the output schema exists (though not shown in the prompt). However, for a creation tool with no annotations, it lacks information about post-creation steps (e.g., does it compile? does it save?), error conditions, and how it relates to the broader BT creation workflow (e.g., should it be used after create_behavior_tree?). The KB reference helps but is not self-contained.

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 must compensate. It lists the three parameters (name, task_description, path) with brief explanations and an example, but the explanations are minimal and don't add much beyond the schema's titles/defaults. The example only shows 'name', not how path or task_description are used, and the path default is not mentioned in the description.

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 clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('Behavior Tree Task Blueprint'), and explains what BT Tasks are (leaf nodes performing actions). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_bt_decorator and create_bt_service by specifying it creates task blueprints, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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 implies usage by explaining BT Tasks are leaf nodes that perform actions and instructing to override ExecuteTask and FinishExecute. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_bt_decorator, create_bt_service, or create_bt_attack_task, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing an existing behavior tree.

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