run_editor_utility_blueprint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only names the action and does not disclose potential side effects, whether execution is synchronous, what happens on error, or any implications of running arbitrary editor code.

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, focused sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is easy to parse and directly states the core function.

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?

Although the tool has only one parameter, it executes an arbitrary blueprint and the description offers no explanation of expected behavior, return values, or how it differs from related tools. With no annotations or output schema, the description needs to provide more context to be considered complete.

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 single parameter blueprint_path is already fully described in the schema ('Editor Utility Blueprint asset path'), and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable under the baseline-3 rule for high schema coverage.

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 the action ('Run') and the target resource ('an Editor Utility Blueprint's Run event'), making the tool's function unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from the sibling tool run_editor_utility_widget, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as run_editor_utility_widget or other execution tools. There is no context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases.

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