deactivate_external_subsystem

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, not idempotent, not open-world. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the tool refuses certain class kinds (native/abstract/base) and it summarizes the return payload even though no output schema exists. This is useful and consistent with the destructive annotation.

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 front-loaded sentences plus a compact return line; nothing is wasted. The engine API reference (FSubsystemCollectionBase::DeactivateExternalSubsystem) is slightly implementation-heavy but brief enough not to hurt.

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 single-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description covers purpose, a key constraint, and the return shape. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, though it could say more about when to prefer it over the activate counterpart.

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 class_name parameter is fully documented there (short name or /Script/ path). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb (deactivate) and resource (external Blueprint-authored USubsystem), and it can be distinguished from the sibling activate_external_subsystem by verb alone. It also names the underlying engine call, removing ambiguity about what is being operated on.

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 provides a precondition-style exclusion ('Refuses to toggle native / abstract / base classes'), which tells the agent which targets will fail. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or direct routing to activate_external_subsystem or other subsystem siblings, so usage context is only implied.

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