create_projectile_blueprint

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that a movement component is added, but it doesn't mention side effects (e.g., asset creation side effects, whether it overwrites existing blueprints, required project state), permissions, or any constraints. The description is minimal about behavioral expectations beyond the primary action.

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 concise and structured: purpose statement, parameter list, KB pointer, and an example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. The KB pointer adds useful context without bloating the text. Slightly long due to parameter list, but each line earns its place.

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 creation tool with an output schema, the description covers the key parameters and gives an example. It doesn't explain post-creation steps (e.g., saving, compiling) but that may be outside scope. Missing usage context (when to use this vs other blueprint tools) is a notable gap, but overall it's adequate for calling correctly.

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 coverage is 0% (no descriptions in the input schema), so the description compensates by explaining each parameter: speed in cm/s, gravity_scale meaning, damage amount. It also provides a naming example. This adds clear meaning beyond raw types and defaults, though it doesn't specify valid ranges or units for damage.

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 clearly states 'Create a Projectile Blueprint with movement component' – a specific verb, resource, and distinguishing feature. It differentiates from sibling tools that create other blueprint types (character, animation, etc.). However, it doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool, so it's clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_character_blueprint or create_blueprint. No conditions, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use are stated. The example and KB pointer give context but not usage routing.

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