ue_cpp_class_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It thoroughly discloses behavior: generation of C++ files, creation of module files (Build.cs, etc.) for Blueprint-only projects, overwrite behavior via 'force', replication handling for properties, and BlueprintCallable function generation. No contradictions with annotations (none exist). This is exemplary 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 relatively long but well-structured. It begins with the primary purpose, then provides workflow context, then parameter details. Every sentence adds value, though the workflow is repeated in both prose and bullet list. Could be slightly more concise, but overall effective and front-loaded.

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 (8 parameters, nested objects for properties and functions, no output schema), the description covers all major aspects: each parameter, replication, BlueprintCallable, module creation, file overwriting. It does not mention error handling or return values, but these are minor gaps. The description is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to use the tool effectively.

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 add meaning. It explains every parameter in detail: uproject path, class_name naming convention, parent_class options, module default, properties structure (with replication effects), functions structure (with BlueprintCallable default), with_tick default, and force. It goes beyond schema by providing examples and behavioral implications, fully compensating for the empty 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 clearly states the tool creates compilable C++ classes in the project module. It explains the limitation of Blueprint graphs (not writable in Python) and positions this tool as the solution, distinguishing it from Blueprint creation tools. The verb 'genera' (create) and resource 'classe C++' are explicit.

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 provides context for when to use this tool (when logic cannot be expressed in Blueprint graphs) and outlines a full workflow (ue_cpp_class_create -> ue_editor_close -> ... -> ue_reparent_blueprint). It also notes that if the project is Blueprint-only, the C++ module will be created. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like ue_create_blueprint.

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