set_motion_warping_target_follow_component

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: WarpTargets is Transient so the change is not persisted with the level, and missing/component-less targets are errors. It also enumerates the return payload. It does not elaborate on why the change is destructive or how the follow toggle interacts with runtime 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, followed by constraints and a compact return description. Every sentence carries information; the returns block is justified given there is no output schema, though the prose is slightly dense in the first sentence.

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 3-param mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers the action, preconditions, error cases, persistence behavior, and the exact return shape. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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%, and the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly, including the follow boolean's semantics. The description connects the API field bFollowComponent to the follow param and notes other fields are preserved, but adds little parameter syntax or format detail 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?

States a precise verb (Set bFollowComponent) and resource (an existing component-based warp target of an editor-world actor), and frames it as a modification of a target found by internal name. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like set_motion_warping_target_location or add_warp_target_to_component.

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?

Provides clear context: it operates on an existing component-based target and identifies the actor by internal name, plus an error condition for missing/component-less targets. It does not name alternative tools (e.g., the location/bone-name setters) or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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