ue_create_behavior_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It explains the creation action (creates a BT with a preset root node, optionally links a Blackboard) but does not mention what happens if the asset already exists (e.g., overwrite), whether the package path must already exist, or any failure modes. It also does not describe return values, though this is a creation 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 short and efficiently structured: a single intro sentence followed by a clear list of arguments with examples. There is no redundant or filler content; every sentence serves a purpose.

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 creation tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential details for invocation: what it creates, the required parameters, and the optional Blackboard link. It lacks a deeper explanation of the difference between Selector and Sequence, and how the Blackboard path is actually applied, but these are not critical for basic use.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description partially compensates by giving example values for package_path and name, clarifying that blackboard_path is optional, and listing valid values for root_composite ('BTComposite_Selector', 'BTComposite_Sequence', or any valid composite class). This adds meaning beyond the schema, though it does not explain the name format constraints or the exact semantic of linking a Blackboard.

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 clearly states it 'Crea un Behavior Tree con un nodo radice già impostato (Selector o Sequence), opzionalmente collegato a un Blackboard' – a specific verb and resource, with details on the root node and optional Blackboard linkage. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ue_bt_add_node (which modifies an existing tree) and ue_create_blackboard (which creates a Blackboard asset).

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 context of use is implied: you use this to create a new Behavior Tree asset. However, there is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, nor any mention of alternatives like ue_bt_add_node for further editing. It is clear enough but lacks explicit differentiation.

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