gas_create_gameplay_cue

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

With no annotations present, the description carries full disclosure burden and does a solid job: it explicitly states that overwrite 'Delete[s] an existing asset with the same path first' (destructive side effect), and it explains the actor-vs-static behavioral distinction ('Actor cues can own state; static cues are fire-and-forget'). This exceeds what the bare schema signals.

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 front-loaded with the one-sentence purpose, followed by a tight parameter block where each line earns its place, then a KB pointer and a minimal working example. It is somewhat longer than necessary, but nothing is redundant given zero schema descriptions.

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 5-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description covers the purpose, every parameter's semantics, the destructive overwrite behavior, and provides a callable example plus a KB anchor. The only real gap is explicit sibling routing, and return values are handled by the output schema.

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 fully compensate, and it does: all five parameters are given real meaning — name ('usually prefixed GCN_'), path ('Destination folder under /Game'), notify_type with the actor/static tradeoff, parent_class as optional, and overwrite with its destructive semantics. This is exemplary compensation for a schema that only lists titles.

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 opening line 'Create a GameplayCue notify Blueprint asset' names a specific verb, resource type, and the specialized 'notify' variant, which cleanly separates it from sibling tools like gas_create_ability, gas_create_gameplay_effect, and gas_create_attribute_set. The example (GCN_DashTrail) reinforces the exact asset kind being produced.

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 communicates implied usage through the GCN_ naming convention and the actor/static explainer, and points to a KB doc for deeper context. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over sibling GAS creation tools or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer the boundaries.

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