set_behavior_tree_blackboard

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

The description clarifies that the action assigns an asset and gives sequencing context, but it never discloses whether an existing Blackboard assignment is replaced, whether assets must already exist, or what failure/return behavior to expect. With no annotations available, those behavioral details are left to the agent to infer.

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 action, followed by a short 'when to use' paragraph, then args, KB link, and a runnable example. Each section adds distinct value without 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?

For a two-argument assignment tool, it includes purpose, timing, arg semantics, a KB reference, and a full invocation example; the output schema covers return values. It could be more explicit about overwrite/validation behavior, but nothing needed to construct a valid call is missing.

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?

The schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), but the Args section defines both parameters as asset names and gives concrete prefixed examples (BT_EnemyAI, BB_EnemyAI). This goes beyond the schema's bare titles, though it could add constraints like existing-asset requirement or path vs. short name.

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?

Opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Assign a Blackboard asset to a Behavior Tree') and reinforces the intent by explaining the one-source-of-truth rule. This clearly separates it from sibling operations like set_blackboard_value or create_blackboard.

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?

States an explicit workflow position: use after creating/repairing BT/Blackboard assets and inspect the tree before adding decorators, services, or EQS tasks that depend on keys. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use alternatives, so it stops short of a full 5.

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