ue_create_gameplay_ability

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that the ability logic (ActivateAbility, nodes) remains an EdGraph that is not scriptable and must be drawn by hand, while data properties are set at creation. This is key behavioral context that helps set expectations. However, it does not mention side effects like asset creation details or the need for an open project.

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 well-structured, starting with a clear purpose, followed by a brief explanation of the logic/data split, and a clean list of arguments with examples. Every sentence adds value; it is concise without unnecessary filler.

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's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: what asset type is created, how it differs from generic Blueprints, what is and isn't automated, and all parameter value options. It lacks a bit on interpretation of policy choices or what the tool returns, but overall it is substantially complete.

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 zero property descriptions, so the parameter semantics depend entirely on the description. The description provides example values for package_path and name, and explicitly lists the allowed enum values for instancing_policy and net_execution_policy. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema, though it does not explain the meaning of each policy option.

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 explicitly states 'Crea un GameplayAbility Blueprint (asset dedicato, non un Blueprint generico)' which clearly identifies the action (create) and the resource (GameplayAbility Blueprint), and differentiates it from a generic Blueprint. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ue_create_blueprint.

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 clear context by specifying it is for a dedicated GameplayAbility asset, not a generic Blueprint. It implicitly tells the agent when to use it (for GameplayAbility creation) and when not (for generic Blueprints), but does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools. It also explains that ability logic must be drawn manually, helping the agent understand the tool's scope.

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