pause_behavior_tree

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly/non-idempotent/destructive, and the description adds meaningfully on top: it uses 'PauseLogic', notes paused is always true and not read back while was_running is actually measured, and explains the component-resolution order. That is substantive behavioral disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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-loaded with the action and scope, then semantics, then the return shape. Dense parentheticals are information-bearing rather than filler, though the sentence is packed enough to slightly slow a first read.

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?

A single-parameter mutation tool with annotations present and no output schema, yet the description supplies the return object { actor_name, paused, was_running } and the PIE exclusion. Nothing essential to correct invocation 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?

With one parameter and 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents actor_name fully (object name or label of the pawn/controller/component owner, first match). The description only lightly corroborates the resolution target, so 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?

Specific verb (Pause) plus resource (behavior tree) plus the exact target resolution (AIController brain component, falling back to a UBehaviorTreeComponent on the actor). It names the continuation sibling resume_behavior_tree, letting an agent separate it from resume/stop at a glance.

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?

'Editor world only, never PIE' is an explicit when-not constraint, and 'Continue it with resume_behavior_tree' routes to the paired tool. It stops short of differentiating from stop_behavior_tree or restart_behavior_tree, which also mutate the same resource.

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