skill_plan_gameplay_mechanic

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses two important traits: the tool does not spend credits and does not mutate the editor. It also enumerates the plan's contents, giving the agent a concrete expectation of what it will get back.

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 purpose, followed by a compact list of plan dimensions, a KB pointer, and a concrete example. It is moderately dense but every sentence adds value; the example is particularly useful for showing the expected invocation style.

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 the plan's scope, safety profile, and example invocation, which is good for a planning tool. However, it omits guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings and leaves two optional parameters semantically unexplained. Given no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, that gap makes it incomplete for fully confident invocation.

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, but it only documents 'brief' indirectly through the example. The optional parameters content_path and include_generated_assets are never explained, leaving their meaning, defaults, and interaction with the generated plan undocumented.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Plan an Unreal-ready gameplay mechanic implementation from a brief.' It also distinguishes itself from the many mutation-style sibling tools by explicitly saying it returns a 'no-spend, no-editor-mutation plan,' so an agent can tell this is a planning step, not an implementation step.

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 use case is clear: call this when you need an implementation plan from a brief. However, the description never names alternatives or states when not to use it, such as versus skill_generate_playable_slice or direct blueprint mutation tools. The no-editor-mutation note implies pre-execution use, but routing guidance is left implicit.

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