gas_apply_effect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It honestly reveals the 'ensure_asc' side effect (adding an AbilitySystemComponent if missing) and the 'record' nature of the operation. However, it does not disclose whether the asset is saved, whether the modification is a one-time metadata change vs a graph node insertion, or what output the tool returns. Middle ground: some behavioral context, but not deeply transparent.

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: one-sentence summary, then an Args block with per-parameter explanations, a KB pointer, and a concrete example. Every line earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool with four parameters, an output schema, and no nested objects, the description is nearly complete. It covers the purpose, all parameters, and gives an example. The only gap is that it doesn't mention possible side effects beyond ensure_asc (e.g., whether the existing effect list is appended or replaced), but the UX is still workable for an agent.

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 inline Args list is the only source of parameter meaning. It clearly explains target_bp ('Blueprint asset name/path receiving the effect metadata'), effect ('GameplayEffect asset path or class path'), level ('Default effect level'), and ensure_asc ('Add an AbilitySystemComponent if the Blueprint lacks one'). The example further ties parameters to real values. This fully compensates for the schema's silence.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('a default GameplayEffect application on a Blueprint'), plus the auxiliary action of ensuring an ASC. This makes the tool's function immediately clear and distinguishes it from related siblings like gas_create_gameplay_effect (create) or gas_grant_ability (grant).

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 intended use is implied by the verb and object ('record a default GameplayEffect application'), and the example demonstrates a real invocation. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., gas_grant_ability for runtime grants, gas_create_gameplay_effect for creation), and no 'when not to use' note. The KB reference is helpful but not a substitute for usage rules.

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