set_camera_asset_director

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true/idempotent=true, and the description adds real substance beyond them: it replaces any existing director (what is destroyed), performs one undo step, and on a failed save returns saved=false with save_error while leaving the change in memory. These failure and reversibility semantics are exactly what an agent needs.

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 operation, then undo behavior, failure semantics, and a compact return shape. Every sentence carries information, though the description is dense and could be slightly tightened.

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 supplies the return object shape and documents the failure mode (saved=false, save_error) and in-memory persistence. For a destructive mutation with only two params, 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 are already documented as /Game/... paths in the schema. The description names camera_asset_path/camera_rig_path in the return list but adds no format or constraint detail 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?

States a precise verb+resource: wires a USingleCameraDirector on a UCameraAsset pointing at a UCameraRigAsset, replacing any existing director. This is unmistakably distinct from siblings like create_camera_asset, build_camera_rig, or set_camera_rig_root_node.

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 phrase 'the "one rig" director' and 'replacing any director it had' imply the single-rig configuration this is meant for, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing to alternatives such as build_camera_rig or set_camera_rig_root_node. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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