ue_reparent_blueprint

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

Describes variable absorption/renaming and the optional cleanup of unused variables. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Lacks details on reversibility or post-actions like compilation, but covers main aspects.

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?

Front-loaded with main action, well-structured with bullet points for args. Slightly verbose but efficient overall.

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?

Lacks description of return value or post-conditions (e.g., if blueprint is saved/compiled). Input parameters are well described, but missing outcome details for a modification 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?

Adds significant meaning beyond schema (which has 0% coverage): provides examples for blueprint_path and new_parent, explains the format, and clarifies the remove_unused_variables parameter.

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 to a C++ class, with the purpose of giving executable logic. It distinguishes from siblings like ue_cpp_class_create.

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?

Explicitly explains when to use (to give executable logic to a Blueprint), mentions alternatives (ue_cpp_class_create), and describes variable behavior. Provides clear context.

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