generate_actor_component

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and behavior. It only says 'Generate an ActorComponent class', but does not clarify whether this writes to disk, modifies the project, requires an active Unreal project, overwrites existing files, or what the output format is. This is a generation tool with potentially mutating behavior, and the description is silent on those 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately communicates the core action and resource. 'For reusable functionality' is a brief purpose clause, but not wasteful. It is concise and well-structured for such a short description.

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 code generation tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is undersized. It fails to explain the generation context (e.g., C++ vs Blueprint, side effects, project requirements, or what the generated component contains). The schema fully covers parameters, but the overall tool behavior remains ambiguous, making the description inadequate for agent decision-making.

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 100%: both 'className' and 'module' have descriptive text with an example format. The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The className example 'UMyComponent' is already in the 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 the tool generates an ActorComponent class, with the verb 'Generate' and resource 'ActorComponent class'. It adds the purpose 'for reusable functionality', which provides context but is generic. It distinguishes from sibling generation tools that target other class types (game mode, character, etc.), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other generate_* tools.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives like generate_uclass or generate_blueprint_compatible_class. There are no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no mention of when not to use it. The only hint is the vague 'for reusable functionality', which does not effectively steer the agent.

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