gas_add_tag

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool modifies a Blueprint (records tag metadata) and can add an ASC if missing (ensure_asc). This is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention side effects like whether the Blueprint is saved, whether existing tags are overwritten, or whether compilation is triggered. The KB reference partially compensates.

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 front-loaded with the main action. The Args section is clear and the example is helpful. The KB reference adds a bit of noise but is useful for deeper context. No wasted sentences.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown in detail) and 3 params. The description covers the main action and parameters, but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or what happens when the Blueprint already has the tag. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is adequate but not complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains target_bp (Blueprint asset name/path), tag (with examples like Ability.Movement.Dash), and ensure_asc (add ASC if lacking). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail tag format constraints or path resolution behavior.

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 states a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('GameplayTag on a Blueprint') and mentions ensuring an ASC. It clearly identifies the tool's function. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling GAS tools like gas_grant_ability or gas_create_ability, though the tag-recording focus is fairly clear.

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 implies usage context (recording owned tags on Blueprints, ensuring ASC) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like gas_grant_ability or gas_create_ability. The KB reference provides a pointer for more context, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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