set_trigger_events

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 substantial context beyond them: the exact collision profile applied, the SetGenerateOverlapEvents toggle, the callback_bound=false output signal, and the unusual limitation that this does not wire up an actual overlap delegate. It stops short of warning that the existing collision profile is overwritten, which is the key destructive side effect.

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 the honesty note, then the return shape. Every element carries information, though the enumerated Returns line partially restates what the prose already conveyed. Efficient overall with no padding.

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 present, the description usefully enumerates the return fields (callback_bound, success, etc.), which is exactly the kind of gap it must fill. Combined with the behavioral detail, an agent has enough to invoke and interpret the call, though it could note the overwrite behavior for full completeness.

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 both actor_name and generate_overlap_events are already documented in the schema. The description implies the boolean's effect (toggling SetGenerateOverlapEvents) but adds no syntax, default, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries parameter semantics.

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 (configure) and resource (overlap-event generation on a trigger/volume's root primitive component), then details the exact mechanism: applying the built-in 'Trigger' collision profile and toggling SetGenerateOverlapEvents. This is unmistakably distinct from siblings like get_trigger_events (a read) or add_actor_begin_overlap_event (callback binding).

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 'Honesty note' gives clear context on what this tool does and does not accomplish -- it fires overlap events but will not bind an actual callback, which requires a Blueprint/native C++ class. That is effectively a when-not caveat, though it never names the alternative tool an agent should reach for instead when actual callback binding is required.

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