create_fps_character

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the key actions – creating a blueprint and adding camera and arms mesh components – but does not mention side effects such as overwriting existing assets, prerequisites, or compilation behavior. The KB reference adds context but not behavioral detail.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, then Args, KB, and Example sections. Every line adds value, and the most critical information is front-loaded. No redundancy or filler.

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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the essential action, parameter meaning, and an example. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be described. It lacks explicit prerequisites or failure modes, but these are less critical for a straightforward creation tool, making it complete enough for correct invocation.

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 input schema provides only 'name' with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by defining it as 'Blueprint name' and providing an example ('BP_FPSCharacter'), which clarifies the expected format and usage. It adds meaning beyond the schema, though it doesn't mention naming constraints.

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?

Description opens with 'Create a First-Person Shooter character Blueprint' – a specific verb and resource. It further clarifies by stating it 'Adds a first-person camera and arms mesh components,' which distinguishes it from generic character blueprint tools like create_character_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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention create_character_blueprint or any other sibling, nor does it provide conditions or exclusions. The agent is left to infer suitability solely from the tool's name.

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