end_behavior_on_actor

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds the return shape ({ actor_label, behavior_class, ended }), which is genuinely useful given no output schema exists, but it does not explain what happens to the pawn's state afterward or whether the stop is reversible.

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 tightly written sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the return contract appended. Nothing is wasted, though the 'Returns' line could be integrated more elegantly.

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 mutation tool, the description covers the action, world context, and return shape. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the inline Returns declaration, leaving little an agent needs 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (actor_label, behavior_class) are already documented, including the 'defaults to UGameplayBehavior (stop all)' semantics. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; 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 ('Stop') and resource ('a UGameplayBehavior running on a Pawn in the editor world'), which is clearly distinct from the sibling trigger_behavior_on_actor. It does not explicitly name siblings or contrast with them, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., trigger_behavior_on_actor, set_behavior_class, or the behavior subsystem tools). The only contextual cue is 'in the editor world', which does not address when/when-not to invoke it.

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