ue_create_pcg_graph

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does add one useful detail (Input and Output nodes already included), but it omits important traits such as whether the asset is saved immediately, what happens if the asset already exists, or whether the package path must exist. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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 concise and front-loaded. The main purpose is stated in a single sentence, followed by a compact argument list with examples. No filler or redundant information is present.

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 simple creation tool, the description conveys the core purpose and parameter examples, but it lacks usage context, safety, or error-condition information. Given the absence of annotations and an output schema, more detail about preconditions and effects would be expected for a complete description.

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 description coverage, but the description compensates by providing concrete examples for both parameters (package_path and name). However, it does not fully explain the semantics, such as whether package_path is a folder or full asset path or if name should include an extension. The examples help but leave room for interpretation.

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 the tool's purpose: it creates an empty PCG Graph asset, and specifically notes that Input and Output nodes are already included. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ue_pcg_add_node and ue_pcg_graph_info, and the verb 'Crea' provides a clear action.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used before adding nodes or any context about typical workflows. The example argument values are helpful but do not explain the tool's role among similar PCG tools.

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