ue_create_gameplay_effect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full disclosure. It states the creation action but does not mention whether existing assets are overwritten, whether the asset is saved/compiled, or any error/return behavior.

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?

Two-line purpose plus a compact arg list; every element adds information, with examples and enum-style values.

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?

All four parameters are documented, but the description lacks output/return expectations and does not explain the relationship between duration_policy and period (e.g., whether period only applies with HasDuration). Without annotations or output schema, this leaves minor but real gaps.

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 descriptions are 0% and the description compensates with concrete examples for package_path and name, explicit allowed values for duration_policy, and the unit/meaning of period (seconds for periodic effects).

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?

Description opens with 'Crea un GameplayEffect Blueprint' — a specific verb (create) and resource (GameplayEffect Blueprint) with parent type, distinguishing it from sibling creation tools like ue_create_blueprint and ue_create_gameplay_ability.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; it never mentions related tools (e.g., ue_ge_add_modifier) or prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the tool name and creation context.

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