set_motion_warping_target_location_offset

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true and destructive=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: it names the exact fields written, notes which sibling fields are preserved, and discloses the return shape including previous/new values and a 'changed' flag so the agent knows the mutation is observable and reversible in intent.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its preservation guarantee, followed by the return contract. No filler or redundancy.

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 usefully carries the return contract ({ actor_name, warp_target_name, previous_*, new_*, changed }), which the schema does not cover. Combined with 100% parameter coverage and the preservation note, the definition is nearly complete; only explicit routing guidance for when to prefer this over the other motion-warping setters is absent.

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 all three parameters (actor_name, location_offset, warp_target_name) are already documented in the schema, including the [x, y, z] format and the LocationOffsetDirection reference. The description repeats 'LocationOffset (FVector)' but adds no syntax or constraint details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 definition states a specific verb (Set) and resource (LocationOffset/FVector on an existing FMotionWarpingTarget), and the parenthetical 'keeps BoneName/follow/rotation-offset' scopes the operation precisely. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like set_motion_warping_target_location or set_motion_warping_target_rotation without opening their schemas.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The note that it preserves BoneName/follow/rotation-offset implies the use case (partial update of only the offset versus replacing the whole target), but this must be inferred rather than being stated. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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