configure_interaction

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose genuinely useful behavior beyond the schema: pivot/offset are in local engine XYZ meters, and the first attachment mutates the managed StaticMeshActor into a native Blueprint while later revisions preserve that Actor. It still omits permissions, reversibility, error modes, and what happens for non-door/chest kinds.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the unit caveat, then the stateful-attachment note. The telegraphic style is dense but every sentence carries information; 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 13-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. It communicates the moving-asset prerequisite and the one-time Blueprint conversion, but an agent still cannot correctly populate the majority of parameters from this text.

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% across 13 parameters. The description only clarifies the units/space of pivot and moving_offset; kind's allowed values, and the meaning of uses, angle, distance, event_id, demo_input, moving_asset_id, depleted_asset_id, and interaction_point are undocumented anywhere.

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 opens with a specific verb pair plus resource: 'Attach/update door/chest/pickup behavior', so an agent knows it configures interactive behavior on an existing asset. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like create_interactive_prop or edit_prop_part, so sibling routing is left to inference.

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 gives one real usage constraint: doors/chests require a separately prepared moving asset before this will work. There is no when-to-use vs when-not guidance, no statement about which kinds are valid, and no pointer to an alternative tool for creating rather than configuring interactions.

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