create_circular_movement_component

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple 'create' by explaining the implementation: uses Event Tick + Delta Seconds, applies SetRelativeLocation + AddLocalRotation, and defaults to 180 deg/sec. It does not disclose side effects like potential asset overwrite or needing to save the asset, but the provided mechanics and defaults give solid behavioral insight.

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 well-structured with a short opening, bullet-pointed behavior summary, usage sentence, argument list, KB reference, and example. The 'This is perfect for...' sentence is somewhat informal but adds use-case value. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given all parameters are optional and the schema provides defaults but no descriptions, the description fills the gap completely with argument meanings and an example call. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. It does not mention prerequisites or failure modes (e.g., existing asset collision), but for a create-component tool it is reasonably 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly by explaining all four parameters: 'rotation_per_second: Orbit speed in degrees per second', 'orbit_radius: Radius of the circular orbit in Unreal units', 'folder_path: Content browser folder', and 'name: Component Blueprint name'. This adds units and contextual meaning the schema's bare titles and defaults lack.

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 + resource: 'Create the orbiting Scene Component' and 'Creates BP_CircularMovComp'. It goes beyond a generic create tool by detailing the exact component behavior (Event Tick, SetRelativeLocation, AddLocalRotation) and naming the output asset. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_blueprint or add_component_to_blueprint.

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 clear usage context: 'perfect for rotating shields, orbiting particles, or any attachment that needs to circle around an actor.' This tells an agent when to select this tool. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is unambiguous enough for a creation tool.

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