flush_net_dormancy

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

Despite annotations already covering the mutation profile, the description discloses substantial behavior beyond them: nothing is transmitted, PIE is unreachable, the dormancy flag still transitions DORM_Initial -> DORM_DormantAll, and the returned 'flushed' value is always true. That is exactly the kind of side-effect detail an agent needs.

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?

It is front-loaded with the action and its target, then gives the necessary caveats. Slightly dense and the embedded 'Returns: { actor_name, flushed }' is compact rather than wasted, though it partially restates the always-true note.

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 tool with no output schema, the description supplies the full picture: what it does, the editor-world limitation, the resulting state change, and the exact return shape. Nothing an agent needs to invoke 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?

There is one parameter at 100% schema coverage, and the schema already documents that actor_name matches labels, not object names, and takes the first match. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description names the exact engine method (AActor::FlushNetDormancy), the resource (a dormant replicated actor located by label), and the effect on its state. It is unambiguous and separable from siblings like force_net_update or set_actor_net_dormancy.

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 explains the context in which the tool runs (editor world with no net driver, PIE never reached), which implicitly tells an agent this is effectively a no-op, but it never states when to prefer this tool over force_net_update or set_actor_net_dormancy, or when not to call it at all.

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