ue5_call_function

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

The description carries the full behavioral burden because no annotations are provided. It discloses the basic action but does not mention side effects, whether the function may modify world state, permission requirements, failure behavior for non-callable functions, or whether a return value is captured. These are significant unknowns for an arbitrary function-call tool.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and contains no redundant filler. 'Blueprint-callable' and 'full Unreal object path' are meaningful qualifiers, not padding. Every word 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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must compensate. It defines what is being called and how to target it, but omits return-value behavior, side-effect expectations, and error conditions for invalid paths or non-callable functions. For an execution tool that can invoke arbitrary function logic, this leaves important gaps.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that objectPath must be a full Unreal object path and that functionName refers to a Blueprint-callable UFUNCTION, but it adds no meaning about the optional parameters object beyond what the schema already states.

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 names a specific action ('Call'), a precise resource ('Blueprint-callable UFUNCTION'), and the targeting mechanism ('full Unreal object path'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ue5_get_object_property and ue5_set_object_property, which handle property reads/writes rather than function invocation.

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 the use case: invoke a UFUNCTION on an object, rather than reading a property or running a console command. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives, so the agent must infer the appropriate choice from the verb and wording.

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