ascent_apply_then_verify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior, and it does disclose the same-commandlet-boot guarantee and the all-or-nothing failure condition. However, it does not explain what happens to script changes if verification fails (rollback, persistence, partial effects) and does not mention the dryRun or other safety-related behavior.

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 behavior is front-loaded and presented in a compact paragraph. The final tagline adds personality and reinforces the verification purpose, though a bit of it is rhetorical rather than strictly informative. Overall it earns its length, with minimal repetition.

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?

This is a complex nested-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, but the description omits important operational details: how expectation matchers work, how the verify target is selected, what dryRun=true implies, and what the return/error shape looks like. An agent would need to dig deeply into the schema to call this correctly.

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 only 14%, so the description must compensate for seven under-documented parameters. It loosely maps script, verify, and expect to 'repo script', 'probe an actor or asset', and 'expectations', but it does not clarify the semantics of args, dryRun, timeoutSeconds, allowWithEditorOpen, or the nested verify/expect object structures.

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 a specific verb plus resource: it runs a repo script, probes an actor or asset, and checks expectations in the same commandlet boot. This differentiates it from sibling tools like unreal_run_python_script and unreal_probe_actor by emphasizing the combined atomic apply-and-verify behavior.

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 implies the tool should be used when you want both mutation and verification in one commandlet boot, but it never gives explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or names alternatives. The 'probe before you believe' line hints at the intended context but leaves the selection decision to inference.

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