pcg_create_graph_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the overwrite behavior (deleting an existing graph) and save option, but does not clarify what happens if the graph exists and overwrite is false (reuse is mentioned but not detailed), nor any permissions or failure modes. This is a partial disclosure for a mutation tool.

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-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a clear Args list, a KB reference, and an example. All content is relevant, with no filler, and the essential purpose 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?

Given an output schema exists (so return values are covered) and the description explains all parameters with an example, it is nearly complete. The only minor gap is the ambiguous 'reuse' behavior – whether it silently reuses an existing graph or fails without overwrite – which could affect agent decision-making.

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 provides an Args section explaining each parameter: graph_path with a concrete example, overwrite with its delete behavior, and save with its purpose. This fully covers all three parameters, adding meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 ('Create or reuse') and a clear resource ('PCG graph asset'), with a concrete example path. It distinguishes itself from sibling PCG tools (e.g., pcg_create_volume, pcg_refresh_volume) by focusing on graph asset creation, so an agent can easily identify its role.

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 clearly indicates the tool creates or reuses a PCG graph asset and notes it works 'when available' (Unreal Python), giving a condition. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, relying on the tool name and sibling context to imply its niche.

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