create_editor_utility_blueprint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does substantial work: it discloses the editor-only execution environment, the Edit-Mode restriction, context-menu behavior, and the scripting node set available to generated blueprints. It does not mention creation side effects such as compilation/saving or name-collision behavior, but that is a minor gap for an asset-creation tool.

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 purpose, then organized into compact sections (types, available nodes, args, KB link, example). Every section contributes decision-relevant information and there is no repeated or filler text.

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 tool with 4 params, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it defines the parameter set, allowed choices, defaults, and points to a KB section for deeper context. The main remaining gap is the precise structure of the functions parameter, which the loose 'inputs'/'outputs' keys leave to inference.

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 compensates by explaining every parameter: name with an example, allowed utility_type values, folder_path as a Content Browser folder, and a rough shape for functions as [{'name','inputs','outputs'}]. The functions object remains underspecified—what an 'input' or 'output' entry looks like is not detailed—so it does not reach 5.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource—'Create an Editor Utility Blueprint'—and immediately adds its scope ('runs in the Unreal Editor'). It then distinguishes the asset type from ordinary Blueprints by explaining Edit Mode, context-menu exposure, and the three utility_type variants, so an agent can tell it apart from create_blueprint and other creation 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?

It provides clear context: this is for editor-time asset/actor manipulation, explicitly 'not during Play', and explains which utility type fits which scenario (ActorActionUtility vs AssetActionUtility vs EditorUtilityBlueprint). It stops short of naming alternative tools or stating when not to use this tool, so it earns 4 rather than 5.

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