gas_grant_ability

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does explain that ensure_asc adds an AbilitySystemComponent if missing, and mentions default grant level and input_id semantics. However, it does not disclose side effects like whether existing grants are overwritten, if the Blueprint is compiled, or if changes require saving. The description is partially transparent but missing key behavioral details.

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 well-structured: a concise summary, a parameter breakdown, a KB reference, and a concrete example. The info is front-loaded with the purpose, and the example clarifies usage. It is not overly verbose, though the parameter list could be moved to schema descriptions if they were present. Overall, efficient and well-organized.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 params, defaults, no annotations) and that an output schema exists, the description covers essential usage: all parameters are explained, an example is provided, and a KB link offers deeper context. It does not mention error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., the ability asset must exist), but for typical usage it is sufficiently 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 explain all parameters. The Args section does this effectively: target_bp, ability, level, input_id (with explicit instruction to use -1 for tag/input binding), and ensure_asc are all defined clearly. This adds significant meaning beyond the parameter names, fully compensating for the missing schema 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 action: 'Record a default GameplayAbility grant on a Blueprint and ensure an ASC.' The verb 'Record' clearly indicates writing metadata to a Blueprint asset, and the mention of ASC distinguishes it from other GAS tools like gas_create_ability. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., gas_create_ability, gas_apply_effect). It only states what it does and lists parameters. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or alternative tools. The KB reference hints at more context but is not explicit.

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