unreal_blueprint_compile

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

The description discloses consumption semantics, synchronous execution with SkipSave, possible side effects from callbacks, no timeout/cancellation/retry/rollback guarantees, stale-attempt consumption, timeout recovery advice, and success limitations. This goes well beyond the sparse annotations and strongly informs the agent of the destructive, non-idempotent nature.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, with each subsequent sentence adding a distinct behavioral fact. There is no filler or redundancy; the density is high but every clause 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 destructive, non-idempotent, timeout-prone nature of the tool, the description covers the essential operational behaviors: plan consumption, failure semantics, side effects, prerequisites, and success interpretation. The presence of an output schema covers return-value details, so nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this safely.

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 schema provides only a bare plan_id with length constraints and 0% description coverage. The description compensates by establishing that plan_id refers to a reviewed native compile plan, that the plan is consumed, and that the same plan's receipt should be read after timeout. It does not fully explain how to obtain a valid plan_id, but the single-parameter context makes this adequate.

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 uses a specific verb ('consume') and resource ('one reviewed native compile plan') and states the output ('fresh bounded compiler diagnostics'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like preview or receipt tools, which do not consume a plan or produce fresh diagnostics.

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?

It gives clear context for when to call: on a reviewed native compile plan, with explicit expected project configuration, and not for PIE/simulation or as gameplay/visual acceptance. It stops short of naming specific alternative tools or explicitly saying 'use X instead,' so it lacks full alternative routing.

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