create_data_asset

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains parameters but omits critical behaviors: overwrite behavior if asset exists, required permissions, error handling, or side effects. A creation tool needs to disclose these.

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?

Well-structured with parameter breakdown and example, but slightly verbose. Every sentence adds value, though the examples could be shortened. No wasted words, but not maximally concise.

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?

Despite having an output schema, description fails to explain return value or behavior when asset exists. For a creation tool, this is a gap. Also lacks context on idempotency or validation, making it incomplete for complex usage scenarios.

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 coverage is 0%, but description adds comprehensive definitions: explains class_name format (short/full path), asset_path requirement, and initial_properties capabilities (primitives, structs, arrays, etc.). This significantly enhances schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'Create a new data asset of any UDataAsset subclass', specifying verb (create), resource (data asset), and scope (any subclass). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_blueprint or create_material.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., add_data_table_row or create_blueprint). The description implies usage via parameter explanations but lacks when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations.

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