set_allow_cinematic_control

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds context the annotations cannot: the change is session-scoped, is not saved and is not undoable, the value is read back from the viewport, and the no-viewport case is an error. That is exactly the persistence/error detail an agent needs before mutating editor state.

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 and scope, with persistence and error caveats following; no filler sentences. The opening sentence is dense with semicolon-joined clauses, which costs a little readability but nothing is wasted.

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, and the description compensates by spelling out the returned shape ({ applied, requested, allows_cinematic_control }), along with target selection, persistence, and error behavior. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 single boolean 'allow' is already described as true/false in the schema. The description touches the same semantics ('sets the given value rather than toggling') but adds no new syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, 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?

Names a specific verb and resource (set whether the active level editor viewport may be possessed by cinematic tools), pins down the exact target (the focused viewport, else the first), and cites the underlying API (FEditorViewportClient::SetAllowCinematicControl). It also names its read-only sibling get_allow_cinematic_control, which lets an agent separate it from the surrounding rig/animation set_* tools.

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?

Explicitly states it sets rather than toggles, points to get_allow_cinematic_control for reading without mutation, and gives the failure condition ('no viewport is an error'). Both the when-to-use and the alternative are spelled out.

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