clear_motion_warping_targets

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the exact idempotent behavior on an empty component (cleared:false + count:0, not an error) and the fact that there is no engine bulk API. Slightly less than 5 because the mutation/destructiveness itself is largely carried by annotations.

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-loads the operation and scope, then the alternative, then the idempotency guarantee and return shape. Every sentence carries distinct information with no padding.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description inlines the return shape (actor_name, cleared, previous_count, new_count, removed_names), so the agent knows what it gets back. Combined with the idempotency and alternative guidance, nothing needed to call it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single actor_name parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds only marginal context (that the actor carries the component), which is essentially redundant with the schema text. 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 (Remove) and resource (EVERY FMotionWarpingTarget on a UMotionWarpingComponent), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling remove_warp_target by scope (all vs. single named target). An agent can pick the right tool without opening either 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?

Explicitly routes to the alternative: 'use remove_warp_target for a single named target', and explains the bulk-vs-single distinction. The 'no bulk engine API' rationale tells the agent why this tool exists rather than leaving it to inference.

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