behavior_tree_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a dependency ('existing Blackboard') and a side effect ('Optionally adds keys to the blackboard first'), which is useful. But it omits other behavioral traits like whether an existing asset is overwritten or validation behavior for the tree spec.

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, front-loaded with the main action, followed by optional aspects. The parenthetical listing node types is dense but purposeful, with no filler or 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?

Given 5 params, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a solid high-level overview including prerequisites and options. It could add details on return values or failure modes, but the schema covers parameter structure, making it sufficient for selection and basic invocation.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the bare schema by enumerating the 26 supported node types and their categories, helping an agent build a valid 'tree' JSON. It also explains the relationship between 'keys' and the blackboard.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('BehaviorTree asset') with clear scope: bound to an existing Blackboard, optionally from a JSON spec. It also distinguishes from generic build-from-JSON siblings by naming the BehaviorTree-specific node types.

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?

Clear context: intended for creating a BehaviorTree asset with an existing Blackboard, with optional node graph and blackboard keys. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling build_from_json tools or list exclusions, so it doesn't reach the 'explicit alternatives' level.

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