game_template_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It is transparent about the generated artifacts, optional map/default game mode behavior, and the return value (a manifest). It also notes that class defaults are 'wired', giving insight into the integration level. This is strong for a generator tool, though it doesn't discuss potential side effects like asset overwrites or project setting persistence beyond what is implied.

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 three short sentences. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, the template list is a compact second sentence, and the return value is noted in the third. No words are wasted; every sentence contributes distinct, necessary information.

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 multi-artifact generation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core behavior: what is created, what options exist, and what is returned. It doesn't mention error cases or prerequisites, but given the complexity and the detail provided, it is reasonably complete. The 'manifest' return mention partially compensates for the lacking output schema.

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 80% (4/5 params described), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by mapping 'optionally a new map and project default game mode' to the create_map and set_as_default flags, and by listing the template enum values inline. This goes beyond the schema's sparse descriptions, especially for the template parameter, which lacks a schema description.

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 begins with a specific verb phrase 'Generate a playable game skeleton' and enumerates the concrete components (GameMode/Character/PlayerController/HUD, camera rig, input preset, optional map and default game mode). This clearly distinguishes it from related sibling tools like gameplay_framework_create, camera_rig_create, or input_preset_apply, which focus on narrower pieces.

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 implies usage as an all-in-one game skeleton generator by listing what it creates, and the template list clarifies which game types it supports. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over more targeted siblings, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative tools. Context is present but no explicit when-not/alternative guidance is given.

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