create_blueprint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Create a new Blueprint class' without mentioning side effects (e.g., asset creation on disk, automatic compilation, or whether existing assets are overwritten), leaving the tool's behavioral footprint completely unspecified.

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 description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple creation tool, though it is minimal.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what a Blueprint class is, what the tool returns, or any prerequisites or side effects. Sibling creation tools like create_anim_blueprint appear similar, making additional context necessary.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all 3 parameters (name, path, parent_class) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, relying entirely on the schema for meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and names the resource ('Blueprint class'), clearly stating the tool's action. It is distinguishable from sibling creation tools like create_anim_blueprint or create_material by explicitly naming 'Blueprint class,' though it does not elaborate on what a Blueprint class entails.

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 guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states the action without mentioning exclusions, prerequisites, or related tools such as compile_blueprint or spawn_blueprint_actor, leaving the agent without selection criteria.

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