create_grab_component

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully explains the four grab-type behaviors and the Movable prerequisite. However, it leaves ambiguity about whether the tool adds a component to an existing/selected Actor or creates a standalone component asset, and it does not mention side effects or creation semantics beyond 'create.'

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 organized into purpose, grab-type definitions, a prerequisite, args, KB reference, and example. Most content earns its place, though the source-chapter reference and trailing example are marginal and the bullet list could be slightly tightened.

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 purpose, parameters, grab types, and a key prerequisite, and an output schema exists to handle return values. The main gap is the missing target/scope of the operation: it never states which Actor receives the component or whether the tool creates a reusable asset, which is essential information before 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates by explaining all three parameters: name as the component blueprint name, default_grab_type with its four allowed values and meanings, and folder_path as the content browser folder. It does not restate schema defaults, but those are already present in the input schema.

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-resource pair: 'Create a GrabComponent Scene Component for VR object grabbing.' It then differentiates the tool by describing the component's role (handles attachment to the motion controller, supports multiple grab types), which clearly separates it from generic create_component or make_actor_vr_grabbable 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 gives a clear use case: 'The GrabComponent is added to any Actor you want to be grabbable in VR' and adds an explicit prerequisite ('The Actor must have Mobility set to Movable'). It does not name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of full routing guidance, but the context is clear.

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