ue_create_blueprint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool creates a Blueprint but does not mention side effects (e.g., file creation, editor changes), prerequisites (e.g., open project, valid paths), or failure modes. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand the full impact.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence followed by a clear list of arguments with examples. No redundant information, every part 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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain return values, error handling, or what happens when the Blueprint is created (e.g., editor opens, asset appears in content browser). This leaves gaps for an agent.

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 input schema has no descriptions for parameters (0% coverage). The description adds value by providing example values for package_path and name, and listing valid parent_class options with 'o un path completo'. This partially compensates, but some parameters lack explanation of constraints or behavior.

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 'Crea un Blueprint' (Creates a Blueprint) and lists parameters with examples, distinguishing it from sibling tools that create other assets or perform different operations.

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 provides examples for parameter values (e.g., package_path, name, parent_class), helping the agent understand when to use the tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, such as using ue_spawn_actor for spawning actors or ue_compile_blueprint for modifying existing Blueprints.

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