add_motion_warping_component

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, yet the description adds substantial extra context: the returned already_existed flag, the NewObject+RegisterComponent mechanism guaranteeing immediate visibility in GetComponents(), and the deliberate choice to mark the level dirty without calling SavePackage. None of that is derivable from the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by idempotency semantics and the return shape. The implementation minutiae (NewObject generic syntax, the SavePackage rationale) is slightly verbose for an agent, but each sentence carries real behavioral information and nothing is redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description explicitly enumerates the return object (actor_path, component_path, already_existed), and it discloses the editor-world precondition plus persistence behavior. An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret this correctly.

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 100%, and the single actor_path parameter is already documented in the schema with an example path. The description adds no extra syntax or format detail about the parameter, so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Attach a UMotionWarpingComponent to an actor in the editor world'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like remove_motion_warping_component, inspect_motion_warping_component, and add_warp_target_to_component. An agent can tell exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear operating context: editor world, and the idempotency condition that dictates behavior when the component already exists. It does not, however, explicitly name when to prefer a sibling or state a when-not condition, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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