set_decal_destroy_owner_after_fade

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

Annotations already declare the write/destructive/idempotent profile. The description adds real value beyond them: it discloses the side effect (writes the FadeOut triad via SetFadeOut using current FadeStartDelay/FadeDuration to preserve the other two fields) and the read-back behavior. It does not, however, warn about the destructive actor-destruction implication directly.

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 action, then rationale vs the sibling, then implementation detail, then return shape. Every sentence carries information, though the 'Implementation:' sentence is slightly verbose for a toggle.

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 two-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the sibling alternative, side-effect preservation, and even inline return values. Nothing needed 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema; the description adds the semantic context that toggling this bit can auto-destroy the owning actor, but little else about the parameter format. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Toggle the bDestroyOwnerAfterFade bit on a UDecalComponent') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling set_decal_fade. An agent can tell exactly what this does and how it differs without opening the 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?

Names the alternative (set_decal_fade) and the exact condition that selects this tool: set_decal_fade always passes DestroyOwnerAfterFade=true, whereas this cmd flips the bit independently. This is explicit when-to-use guidance.

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