check_blueprint_symbol

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the behavioral intent (filtering, blocking symbols) and the caller-side obligation implied by the result, which is meaningful. However, it never states what the response looks like (allowed/blocked flag? reason?), whether the filter is mod-scoped or global, or whether the call has any side effects — gaps that matter for a verification tool.

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?

Three short sentences: what it does, when to call it, and a concrete example. Front-loaded with the action, nothing redundant, and the example earns its place by demonstrating the required path format.

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?

For a small two-parameter read-style check with no output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, and input format adequately. The main remaining gap is the shape of the result and the nature of the filter, which would help an agent interpret and act on a blocked answer.

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 the description must compensate, and it partially does by giving a concrete format example ("/Script/Engine.GameplayStatics" plus a function name), which is genuinely useful for constructing class_path. It does not clarify that function is optional (only class_path is required) or what happens when function is omitted, leaving half the parameters semantically underspecified.

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?

States a specific verb (check) and resource (class or function) against a named domain concept (Deep Field's Blueprint filter), which is clearly distinct from all siblings (asset/datatable/mod management tools). The example with class_path and function further pins down what object it operates on. It stops short of 5 only because 'Blueprint filter' is not explained, though the intent is still unambiguous.

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?

"Check before generating Blueprint logic and never use a blocked symbol" gives an explicit when-to-use rule and the consequence of skipping it. No sibling alternative is named, but no sibling plausibly overlaps with this check, so there is little ambiguity to resolve. The absence of any when-not guidance keeps it out of 5 territory.

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