ue_ge_add_modifier

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool uses a textual serialization workaround and only supports constant ScalableFloat, which are important behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether the asset is saved or what happens to existing modifiers, but the workaround detail adds transparency beyond a generic 'adds a modifier'.

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 with a summary, workaround note, and parameter list. Each sentence adds value. The reference 'vedi nota sopra' (see note above) is a minor issue because no note appears in the provided input, slightly hurting standalone clarity.

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?

With 5 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the purpose, mechanism, limitations, and all arguments. It lacks explicit return-value behavior and prerequisites (e.g., asset must exist), but overall it covers the essential context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description documents every parameter with meaning: ge_path, attribute_set_path, attribute_name with example ('Health'), modifier_op with allowed values, and magnitude with a usage example ('-10 per un danno di 10'). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Aggiunge un modifier a un GameplayEffect' (Adds a modifier to a GameplayEffect), then explains what it links (attribute, operation, value). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ue_ge_add_component (components) and ue_create_gameplay_effect (creation).

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 explains why this tool exists (bypasses a blocked Python API) and explicitly states limitations ('Solo `ScalableFloat` costante, niente curve o attribute-based magnitude per ora'), which tells the agent when not to use it. It doesn't name alternative tools for curved magnitudes, but the exclusion is clear.

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