ue_live_compile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explains that the tool does not close the editor, is fast, but limited to function bodies. It does not mention error handling or return values, but the core behavioral constraints are well communicated.

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 very concise, with no redundant sentences. It front-loads the main purpose and uses a clear structure. Every sentence adds value.

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 single parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: when to use, limitations, and alternative tool. It is complete enough for an agent to correctly select and invoke this 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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. The Args section explains max_wait_seconds: it controls how long to wait for result before returning 'in corso' (in progress), with compilation continuing. This adds context beyond the default value in schema.

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 that this tool recompiles C++ without closing the editor (Live Coding), and distinguishes itself from full rebuilds by specifying it only works on function body changes. It explicitly names the alternative tool ue_build_start for structural changes.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (for fast iteration on function body changes) and when not to use it (for changes that alter reflection data like UCLASS/UFUNCTION/UPROPERTY, which require ue_build_start with editor closed). This provides clear guidance.

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