create_game_instance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create' and explains the conceptual role of GameInstance, but does not mention side effects, whether existing assets are overwritten, where the Blueprint is created, or whether it is automatically assigned as the project's GameInstance class.

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 organized with a clear action line, a short rationale, an args section, a KB pointer, and an example. It is slightly redundant because the Args block and example both communicate the same parameter, but the overall structure is efficient.

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 one-parameter creation tool, the description covers the essential invocation details and even links to a knowledge base overview. It is adequate, but it lacks information about expected asset location, naming conflicts, and creation side effects, which an agent may need when deciding whether this is the right mutation to perform.

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 schema only provides the parameter name 'name', so the description adds meaningful value by explaining it as the Blueprint name and giving a realistic example, 'BP_MyGameInstance'. That is sufficient guidance for the single parameter despite the schema having no property 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?

States a clear action and resource: 'Create a GameInstance Blueprint.' The explanation that GameInstance persists across level loads for player progress and cross-level data helps an agent understand what this asset is for, but it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools such as create_game_mode or create_player_controller.

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 context for when to use this tool: storing player progress, settings, and cross-level data that must survive level loads. It stops short of stating when not to use it or naming alternatives, so it is useful but not fully explicit about exclusions.

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