ue_project_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses creation of .uproject and config files, default enabled plugins, and effects of the 'force' parameter. It mentions default behavior for engine_version. Could add more about potential side effects like overwriting existing files or time consumption, but adequate given complexity.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and then lists parameters in a structured way. It is informative without being overly verbose. However, some details could be more concise (e.g., listing files in a sentence rather than bullet list might save space). Still efficient.

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 complexity of 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main functionality and parameter semantics. It lacks details on error handling (invalid template), potential dependencies (Unreal installation), or return behavior. But overall, it provides sufficient context for effective use.

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?

Despite a schema_description_coverage of 0%, the description provides thorough explanations for all parameters: name (identifier), directory (parent folder), template (blank or named), blueprint_only (excludes Source), plugins (extra), default_map (path), default_game_mode (class path), force (overwrite). This fully compensates for missing schema 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 clear verb+resource: 'Crea un progetto Unreal da specifica, pronto per il bridge MCP.' It explicitly states the tool creates an Unreal project with specific configuration files. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ue_project_find and ue_engine_templates.

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 implies usage for creating projects from scratch, mentions template options, and points to ue_engine_templates for available templates. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ue_project_set_plugins or ue_editor_open. Missing explicit 'when-to-use' and 'when-not-to-use' guidance.

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