send_gameplay_event_to_actor

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so the mutation profile is covered. The description usefully adds the ASC-resolution concept via the returned 'asc_resolved' field, implying the operation silently no-ops when no AbilitySystemComponent is present — valuable behavioral context. But it doesn't state auth/permission needs or side effects of the dispatched event.

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 compact sentences plus a return-shape line. Front-loaded with the core action. Slightly dense with API/header references, but efficient overall.

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?

Given it's a mutation tool with full annotation coverage and complete param docs, the description covers the essential operation. The return signature with 'asc_resolved' is a helpful signal. The main gap is the absence of any when-to-use context against the large set of sibling ability tools.

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%, documenting all three params including the optional payload_magnitude mapping to FGameplayEventData::EventMagnitude. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Sends a FGameplayEvent to the target actor's UAbilitySystemComponent') and names the exact engine API function it wraps, leaving no ambiguity about what it does.

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?

No guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. With many sibling tools (apply_gameplay_effect, activate_ability, grant_ability, trigger_behavior_on_actor), an agent has no cue which path is appropriate or what prerequisites exist (e.g. the actor must have an ASC). 'Lyra-style event bus entry point' hints at context but states no conditions.

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