ue_reparent_blueprint

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects. It details that variables matching UPROPERTies of the new parent are absorbed, others are renamed with '_0', and mentions an optional cleanup parameter. However, it does not mention potential destructive side effects like broken references or the need for compilation.

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 paragraphs and a bullet for arguments, but it is slightly verbose. Each sentence adds value, explaining the purpose, behavior, and parameters. Could be tightened, but still effective.

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 no output schema and 3 parameters, the description covers the core behavior and parameter details. However, it lacks information about return value (if any), error conditions (e.g., missing blueprint), and post-reparenting steps like compilation. For a mutation tool, more completeness would be beneficial.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains blueprint_path with an example path format, new_parent with both name and path examples, and describes remove_unused_variables as cleaning orphaned variables. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 reassigns the parent of a Blueprint, typically to a C++ class. It specifies the verb 'riassegna' and the resource 'parent di un Blueprint', distinguishing it from sibling tools like ue_create_blueprint or ue_compile_blueprint by explaining when this reparenting is needed.

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 when to use this tool: to give executable logic to a Blueprint because graphs are not writable from Python, and suggests creating the C++ parent with ue_cpp_class_create. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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