possess_pawn

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (destructive=true, idempotent=false), but the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context: the engine's authority gate can silently no-op the possession, and it explains which PIE roles have authority (Standalone/ListenServer local PC does, a pure client does not). With no output schema, the explicit Returns shape (possessed/already_possessed/had_authority/note) is also load-bearing information the agent could not otherwise obtain.

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, then the authority caveat, then the return shape — a sensible order. The parenthetical explanation of authority is somewhat dense but every clause carries real information. Slightly heavy for two sentences but not padded.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the pieces an agent actually needs: the required PIE context, the authority caveat, and the return shape. It omits what happens to a previously possessed pawn and any explicit PIE-must-be-running precondition, but those are minor against otherwise solid coverage.

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%, so both parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description's '(by actor name/label)' mirrors the schema's own wording for pawn_actor_name, and it says nothing additional about pie_client_index beyond the schema's 'Optional int (default 0)'. No added meaning over structured data.

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 a specific verb (possess) and resource (a pawn, identified by actor name/label) and the mechanism used (the active PIE session's PlayerController via AController::Possess). That is unambiguous purpose. It doesn't need to differentiate from a sibling because the tool list contains no other possession tool, but it also does not explicitly carve out its scope versus related controller/pawn tools.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: the tool only makes sense against an 'active PIE session', which tells the agent it must be run during PIE. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative, so it lands at implied usage rather than a real routing instruction.

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