camera_rig_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool 'Compiles and saves,' which is a significant side effect, and details the preset configurations. However, it does not disclose whether existing camera/spring-arm components with the same name are overwritten or if there are prerequisites like the blueprint existing beforehand.

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, well-structured sentence that starts with the action and target, then lists presets with concise technical details, and ends with the side effects. Every word adds value, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description is largely complete for a focused tool: it explains what it does, the available presets, and that it compiles/saves. It does not discuss return values (though no output schema exists) or prerequisites like whether the blueprint must already exist, which could matter given sibling tools like blueprint_create.

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?

The schema covers 50% of parameters (arm_name, camera_name) but leaves blueprint_path and preset without descriptions. The description compensates richly for the preset parameter by enumerating each preset and its specific values, adding meaning beyond the schema's enum list. It does not add detail for blueprint_path, but the use is clear from the tool's purpose.

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 states a specific action ('Add a camera rig to a Pawn/Character Blueprint') and specifies the exact resource and scope. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by naming preset configurations, making it clear this tool is dedicated to rigging cameras, not general blueprint creation or compilation.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: whenever you need to attach a camera rig to a Pawn/Character Blueprint with one of the listed presets. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the specificity of the presets and the action makes the intended use obvious.

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