Link an existing water body actor to an AWaterZone to define water zones in Unreal Engine 5 levels.
Link an existing water body actor to an existing AWaterZone.
Returns: { water_body_label: string, water_zone_label: string, linked: bool }
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| water_body_label | Yes | Label of the existing AWaterBody actor to link | |
| water_zone_label | Yes | Label of the existing AWaterZone actor to link into |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return payload shape, which is valuable since no output schema exists, but it says nothing about side effects, persistence, or why the operation is non-idempotent.
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?
Two short sentences with zero filler; the action is front-loaded and the return contract is compactly expressed inline. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 simple two-parameter link operation with annotations covering the safety hints, the description supplies the missing return contract, which is its main completeness gap given no output schema. It still omits idempotency implications and error/failure behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.
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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description repeats the same concepts ('existing water body actor', 'existing AWaterZone') without adding format, lookup, or naming-convention detail beyond what the schema provides.
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 pair — linking an existing water body actor to an existing AWaterZone — and the name/description together make the add-versus-remove pairing with remove_water_body_from_zone obvious. It does not explicitly name the sibling or otherwise differentiate itself beyond the verb, so it falls short of a 5.
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 word 'existing' on both arguments implicitly signals the prerequisite that both actors must already be present, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when this is inappropriate (e.g., a body already in another zone), and no routing to related tools such as create_water_zone or configure_water_zone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.