set_actor_team

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

Annotations already flag readOnly=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the interface/controller resolution, the perception-listener refresh that mutates cached affiliation filtering, and the returned fields. It does not explain the destructiveHint=true flag explicitly, which keeps it from 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, followed by the fallback and side-effect explanation, then an explicit Returns block. Dense but well ordered; the 'only class implementing it in vanilla UE 5.8' aside is arguably extra but adds useful grounding.

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, so describing the return object inline is valuable and done well. Fallback behavior, perception refresh, and return shape are covered. The one remaining gap is the unexplained destructive semantics given both destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true.

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%; team_id's [0,254] range and the reserved 255 id are already in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format meaning for either parameter, 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Assigns a native FGenericTeamId to an actor') and explains the mechanism (IGenericTeamAgentInterface) plus the controller fallback, which is very precise. It does not explicitly contrast with the close siblings get_actor_team or set_native_team_attitude, so it stops just short of 5.

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?

The description gives a clear condition for the controller fallback ('when the actor itself doesn't implement the interface'), which is a form of usage guidance, but it never says when to choose this over set_native_team_attitude or get_actor_team. No when-not guidance is provided.

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