restart_behavior_tree

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds genuine context beyond them: the editor-world-only scope and the important caveat that the returned 'restarted' flag is always true and not measured, so the agent must verify via get_behavior_tree_status. It stops short of saying what state is discarded on restart (e.g. blackboard values), which would matter for a destructive operation.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope before the caveat. The '(RestartTree)' parenthetical is internals that could be dropped, but overall there is little waste.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully discloses the return-value caveat ('restarted is always true, not measured') and the environment restriction. Missing only failure/precondition behavior (what happens if the actor has no behavior tree component), which is minor for a single-parameter mutation tool.

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% and the parameter description already explains the accepted name. The description's 'AIController brain component or a UBehaviorTreeComponent on the actor' clarifies resolution, but adds no argument format or naming syntax beyond the schema, so the 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Restart the current behavior tree... from its root') with the underlying mechanism (RestartTree, resolved via AIController brain component or a UBehaviorTreeComponent). An agent can clearly separate this from sibling pause_behavior_tree, resume_behavior_tree, stop_behavior_tree, and run_behavior_tree.

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 an explicit environment restriction ('Editor world only, never PIE') and routes the agent to get_behavior_tree_status for verification, which is a real when-to-use alternative. It does not, however, contrast restart against run/resume/stop, so the alternative-selection guidance is partial rather than complete.

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