ue5_apply_blueprint_graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses atomic transaction semantics, compilation outside the transaction, read-back verification, and rollback on failure. It stops short of explaining permissions, asset-lock behavior, or how errors are surfaced, which keeps it from a 5.

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 English sentence is front-loaded and dense with useful routing information, and the Chinese sentence mirrors it for bilingual clarity. The bilingual duplication makes it slightly longer than strictly necessary, but nothing is irrelevant.

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 complex, nested-object mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical behavioral contract: atomicity, compile-outside-transaction, read-back verification, and rollback. It could say more about failure reporting and asset-lock interaction, but it is largely complete for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents bp_path, replace, graph_spec, session_id, and idempotency_key. The description adds useful context about constructing graph_spec via ue5_search_blueprint_nodes, but it does not add syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: a declarative whole-graph write that builds/wires a GraphSpec atomically. It clearly distinguishes itself from node-level siblings by naming ue5_connect_pins and ue5_delete_node as surgical-fix-only tools.

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?

It explicitly says this is the main path for graph logic, instructs the agent to build the spec from ue5_search_blueprint_nodes first, and confines ue5_connect_pins / ue5_delete_node to surgical fixes. That is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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