manage_game_framework

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

The description says 'Create' and 'Configure' which implies mutation, but it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits such as whether existing assets are overwritten, required permissions, error handling, or side effects. Annotations are minimal (all false) and don't add context, so the description carries the burden and fails to provide sufficient transparency.

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 a single sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the core actions and resources, making it easy to scan. It earns its place and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool's complexity (41 parameters, 20 actions), the description only covers a few categories and doesn't mention the diverse actions like set_default_pawn_class, configure_round_system, or get_game_framework_info. Without an output schema, the agent lacks context on return values. The description is too high-level to be complete for such a complex tool.

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 78%, so most parameters are already explained in the schema. The description's high-level grouping (match flow, teams, scoring, spawning) maps to some parameters but doesn't add specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. With high coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 creates GameMode, GameState, PlayerController, and PlayerState Blueprints, and configures match flow, teams, scoring, and spawning. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like manage_blueprint by focusing on game framework elements. However, it doesn't enumerate the full range of 20 actions, leaving some ambiguity about the complete scope.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like manage_blueprint or manage_character. The description implies it's for game framework setup but doesn't mention when it's appropriate or when to use a different tool. There are no exclusions or prerequisites described.

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