gas_create_gameplay_effect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the overwrite behavior (deleting an existing asset) and the parent_class default. However, it omits other behavioral details like failure modes (e.g., if asset exists without overwrite), permissions, or saving behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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 well-structured: a single purpose sentence, a compact argument list, and a clear example. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every line adds value. No fluff or redundancy.

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, all parameters, an example, and points to a KB reference. It does not describe return values, but an output schema is present (not shown) which likely covers that. For a creation tool, this is nearly complete; a small gap is the absence of explicit preconditions (e.g., must have the GAS project set up), but that is reasonable to leave implicit.

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 explain the parameters. It does so for all four: name (with GE_ prefix convention), path (under /Game), parent_class (defaults to UGameplayEffect), and overwrite (delete first). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 + resource: 'Create a Blueprint GameplayEffect asset.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling gas tools like gas_create_ability, gas_create_gameplay_cue, etc., which target different asset types. The resource type is unambiguous.

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 purpose and an example, making when-to-use obvious. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the resource specificity (GameplayEffect) already implies the scope. A brief note about alternative tools would push this to 5, but the current guidance is clear enough.

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