set_motion_warping_target_bone_name

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, destructive, idempotent, closed-world mutation, so the description adds some value by noting it resolves the existing Component reference and by describing the return payload. It stops short of disclosing permissions required, error behavior, or what exactly the destructive change affects.

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?

It is two tightly focused sentences with no filler, front-loading the operation before the inline return shape. Every clause earns its place by clarifying either the target requirement or the response.

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 compensates by listing the returned fields, and the input schema fully documents all three required parameters. It is nearly complete for this mutation, though it could mention prerequisites or failure modes when the target or component reference 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 each parameter is already documented in the schema, including bone_name, actor_name, and warp_target_name. The description restates the BoneName concept but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case meaning beyond the schema.

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?

The description states a specific verb (Set) and resource (BoneName on an existing FMotionWarpingTarget), which clearly differentiates it from sibling operations like add_warp_target_to_component or set_motion_warping_target_location. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it stops short of a 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 phrase 'on an existing FMotionWarpingTarget' implies the target must already exist, which is useful context for usage. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and does not route the agent to alternatives such as add_warp_target_to_component.

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