add_actor_begin_overlap_event

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and the read/write safety profile, so the bar is lower, but the description still adds context: it explains the bOverrideFunction mechanism that distinguishes a live override, discloses the compile side effect, and details the already_exists reuse behavior. It stops short of covering the PIE-refusal constraint (deferred to the force param's schema text).

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 scoping constraint and the alternative-tool routing are front-loaded, and the return shape is isolated in its own labeled block. It is dense but every sentence carries load; the only minor cost is length, which is justified by the tool's non-obvious semantics.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (node_id, class, pins, is_override, already_exists) and explaining the one field with a semantic trap ('is_override:true is what distinguishes a live override from a dead look-alike'). Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this tool is missing.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds value beyond the schema by supplying concrete event_name examples (ReceiveActorEndOverlap, ReceiveHit, ReceiveBeginPlay) and noting the default, which helps the agent choose a valid event name rather than merely reading 'must exist on the class or the call errors.'

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 ('Add a real AActor event OVERRIDE node') and immediately distinguishes what it is not ('not an eclipsed stub'). It goes further by naming the two sibling tools an agent might confuse it with, so the tool is separable from alternatives without opening their schemas.

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 explicit routing: 'for a component's delegate use add_component_bound_event, and for an interface member use override_interface_member.' The scope restriction ('only reaches events declared on the ACTOR') tells the agent when this tool is the wrong choice, which is exactly the exclusion guidance a 5 requires.

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