ue_ge_add_component

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key limitation ('Solo l'aggiunta') but omits details such as whether the GameplayEffect asset is saved, how duplicates are handled, or error behavior on invalid paths.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, scope, and alternative guidance. It would benefit from explicit ge_path semantics and persistence behavior, but the overall picture is functional 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 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides example values for component_class and implies ge_path is the path to the GameplayEffect, but it does not explicitly define ge_path's format or the precise relationship between the two parameters.

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 states a clear action ('Aggiunge' - adds) and target ('a un GameplayEffect'), provides concrete examples of component classes, and explicitly limits scope to addition only, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ue_ge_add_modifier.

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 explicitly states when not to use the tool: configuring tags/conditions is not covered, and it directs the user to 'ue_exec_python o l'editor' as alternatives. This gives clear when/when-not guidance.

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