compile_blueprint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates the tool performs an explicit recompile and that it should be used when no further mutation is needed. However, it does not disclose whether the recompile is synchronous, what happens on failure, or any logging/error behavior. The behavioral description is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences: first identifies the tool's function with technical precision, second provides usage guidance and a sibling reference. No wasted words, information is front-loaded and easily scannable.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and only two parameters, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, when to use it, and a related tool. It could mention return behavior or error handling for completeness, but current coverage is good for a simple recompile 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 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters (path and skip_save). The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. It mentions pairing with edit_widget_tree's compile flag, which is contextual but not parameter-specific. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Explicitly states 'Blueprint recompile' as the core action, with a specific technical reference (FKismetEditorUtilities::CompileBlueprint). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like bulk_compile_blueprints or audit_blueprint_compile_status by focusing on a single, explicit recompilation.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: use when a Blueprint has been mutated externally via execute_unreal_python and needs recompilation without further mutation. Also mentions pairing with edit_widget_tree's compile flag, offering a related alternative. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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