set_pie_widget_focus

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the widget-resolution path, the failure mode (Slate refuses focus when a widget is not focusable, e.g. HitTestInvisible), and that has_keyboard_focus is re-read off the widget rather than echoed. It does not, however, reconcile the surprising destructiveHint=true annotation with what is framed as a benign focus setup call, leaving a small behavioral gap.

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 purpose and mechanics, then return-value semantics and failure diagnosis; each block carries information. The middle rationale about menus reading like broken navigation is slightly narrative, but it justifies the tool's existence and aids selection.

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 shape, the meaning of a false has_keyboard_focus, the likely root cause, and the verification/follow-up path. An agent has everything needed to call it, interpret the result, and recover from failure.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters, and the description's gloss on widget_name/child_name (nested Widget Blueprints included) largely restates it. It adds cross-tool consistency ('resolves the same way click_pie_widget does') but says nothing about world or player_index, 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: give keyboard/gamepad focus to a live UMG widget in a running PIE session, and names the exact engine call (UWidget::SetKeyboardFocus). It also positions itself against siblings: it reuses click_pie_widget's resolution semantics and is verified via get_pie_focused_widget, so an agent can distinguish it from read-only inspection tools without opening 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?

Explicitly defines the triggering situation ('menus routinely open with nothing focused, and then every navigation key does nothing') and the follow-up workflow: verify with get_pie_focused_widget, then drive with inject_key_input route="slate". Alternatives and sequencing are named rather than left to inference.

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