prompt_generate

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 clearly states that the tool creates several asset types and that dry_run=true previews the build spec without creating assets. The main gap is a lack of detail on potential side effects such as overwriting existing assets or required project state, but what is disclosed is accurate and useful.

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 compact two-sentence structure, front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately followed by asset types and supported genres. The dry_run guidance is a useful addition without any wasted words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the tool's complexity (generating multiple asset types) and the absence of an output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: scope, asset types, supported genres, and the safe preview mode. It does not describe the exact return shape of the build spec, but the dry_run hint implies a JSON structure, which is adequate for a tool of this breadth.

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 already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (prompt and dry_run), but the description adds meaningful context by listing the supported genres and explicitly recommending dry_run for previewing. This helps the agent understand what kinds of prompts are valid and how to safely use the tool, exceeding the bare schema descriptions.

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 specific purpose: generating complete UE4.27 gameplay systems from a natural language prompt. It enumerates the types of assets produced (Blueprints, Widget Blueprints, materials, data assets, maps, actors, input mappings) and lists supported genres, distinguishing it from more granular tools like blueprint_build_from_description.

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 for high-level, multi-asset system generation by noting supported genres and the dry_run option, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like blueprint_build_from_description or actor_spawn. There is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tools are better suited for simpler tasks.

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