create_blueprint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses the naming convention for spawned actors and parent_class options, but omits details like compilation behavior, duplicate handling, or error conditions.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The main action is front-loaded, and additional details are efficiently provided in the second sentence.

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?

While output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the description fails to clarify the key parameters package_path and name. For a 3-param tool with zero schema descriptions, this is insufficient.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains parent_class (engine class names, class paths) but does not describe package_path or name dimensions, leaving them ambiguous. Partial compensation.

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 it creates a Blueprint asset from a parent_class, with specific examples. It distinguishes from siblings like compile_blueprint (compiles vs creates) and spawn_actor (spawns vs creates) by noting the generated class naming convention for spawning.

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 when to use (to create a Blueprint for later spawning) but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when-not. It provides a naming hint for spawn_actor but lacks context on prerequisites or conflicts.

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