set_actor_lock_location

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=true, openWorld=false), but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it dirties the package via Modify() and requires save_level to persist, and is editor-world only. That is genuinely useful side-effect disclosure; it could be slightly richer on what 'destructive' means here, keeping it off a 5.

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 core action, then intent, then side effects and read-back in a logical order. Dense but every sentence carries distinct information; the parenthetical API reference is the only mild redundancy.

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 2-param editor-only mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, editor scope, persistence requirement, sibling for verification, and even an explicit return shape ({ applied, actor_name, locked }). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (locked, actor_name) are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add syntax or format beyond that, so the baseline of 3 for schema-covered params 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 ('Lock or unlock an actor in the EDITOR world') and even cites the underlying API (AActor::SetLockLocation) and the intent (prevent accidental viewport dragging). It also distinguishes itself from the read-back sibling get_actor_lock_location, so an agent can tell the tools apart without opening a schema.

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 explicit when-to-use ('Pin landmarks -- PlayerStart, landscape, hand-placed props -- before a batch transform pass') and points to the alternative for retrieving state ('Read the flag back with get_actor_lock_location'). Also frames the negative case ('Does not affect runtime/PIE movement'), so scope is unambiguous.

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