cpp_class_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool does not compile and that the editor restart is required, which are important behaviors. However, it does not mention other potential side effects like file system changes, overwriting existing files, or any permissions needed, leaving some gaps in transparency.

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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence states the action, the second clarifies a limitation, and the third gives a post-condition. Every sentence adds necessary information, and the key action is front-loaded.

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 tool with no output schema and multiple parameters, the description covers critical operational context: it clarifies that compilation is not performed and provides the necessary next step (cpp_build) and post-condition (editor restart). It could be slightly more complete by mentioning prerequisites or what the tool returns, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all 5 parameters, so the description adds limited additional semantics. It references the wizard-style boilerplate which gives context for parameters like parent_class and uclass_specifiers, but it doesn't delve into parameter-specific details beyond what the schema covers.

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's function: generating a UCLASS header/source pair in a game module. It provides specifics like UE4.27 wizard-style boilerplate, GENERATED_BODY, and constructor, which distinguishes it from other creation tools like blueprint_create or material_create.

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 gives clear follow-up guidance: it does not compile, so run cpp_build afterwards, and notes that new classes require an editor restart. This implies the appropriate usage context and next steps, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives beyond the implicit C++ class creation scope.

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