release_smart_object

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and readOnly=false, but the description goes further by disclosing the mechanism and blast radius: unregistering the component 'releases any claim it holds', i.e. all claims, not just one. It also documents the UE 5.7 private-API limitation, context annotations cannot convey.

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-loads the purpose, then the constraint, then the return shape in two compact paragraphs. No wasted sentences; every clause (headless path, 5.7 limitation, return shape) carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description supplies the return shape ({ actor_label, released } and error form). Combined with the parameter guidance and limitation disclosure, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only the broader destructive scope wording could be tighter.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds rationale the schema lacks: actor_label is the recommended headless-safe route and claim_handle-only release is impossible without a C++ extension. This meaningfully guides parameter choice.

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 and resource ('Release a Smart Object claim'), so an agent immediately knows the operation. It does not explicitly differentiate from the counterpart tool claim_smart_object, but the destructive release semantics are unambiguous from the verb.

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?

Gives concrete operational guidance: the 'only headless-safe path is to pass actor_label', and explicitly rules out the claim_handle-only path without a C++ extension. It does not name sibling alternatives, but the when-to-use-which-parameter guidance is strong.

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