ue_project_create

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

The description discloses that it writes multiple files and lists parameter effects (e.g., force overwrite, blueprint_only excludes source). However, since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden, but it lacks detail on error handling, success/failure indicators, or prerequisites.

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, file list, and parameter breakdown. It is sufficiently detailed for the number of parameters, though slightly verbose for a tool description.

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?

Covers all parameters and explains what files are created. Lacks explicit return value description and error handling details, but overall complete for a creation tool of this complexity.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description provides detailed explanations for all 11 parameters, including defaults, constraints (e.g., valid identifier for name), and cross-references (e.g., template from ue_engine_templates). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type and name.

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 it creates an Unreal project from specification, ready for MCP bridge, with specific files written. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ue_project_find or ue_project_info.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or compare with siblings.

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