bp_open_blueprint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses a non-obvious side effect: 'Resets any previously registered node handles.' It also establishes the ordering prerequisite. It omits error/failure behavior (e.g., invalid asset_path, already-open asset), so it stops short of full transparency.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then the prerequisite and side effect, then the argument. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema covering returns, the description supplies purpose, prerequisite, side effect, and parameter example. It could be more complete by mentioning failure modes or what happens if the asset is already open.

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% and the single parameter has only a bare title, but the description compensates with a concrete example path and clarifies it is a Blueprint asset path, which is more than the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Open a Blueprint asset for editing via the UE5 plugin') and its role as a prerequisite, clearly distinguishing it from read-only siblings like bp_scan_blueprint and bp_list_assets.

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?

Explicitly states when to call it ('Must be called before adding nodes or connecting pins'), which is strong context. It does not name alternatives (e.g., bp_register_existing) or when-not-to-use cases, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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