stop_behavior_tree

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds much beyond that: runtime-state-only with nothing saved, editor-world-only constraint, the exact read order for was_running, the precise meaning of stopped for running vs paused trees, and the non-error case for a never-started tree. This is rich behavioral context an annotation cannot express.

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?

The core action is front-loaded and every sentence (error semantics, return semantics, sibling routing) earns its place for a tool with no output schema. It is dense and somewhat long for a one-parameter operation, which keeps it off a perfect score but it is not padded.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by embedding the Returns shape and explaining each field. Combined with the safety annotations and the editor-world/runtime constraints, 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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, baseline would be 3, but the description adds real meaning: the actor must be one with an AIController brain component or a UBehaviorTreeComponent, and an actor with no BT component is an error. That constrains which value of actor_name is valid beyond the schema text.

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 specific verb (stop) and resource (behavior tree) and pins the scope: editor-world actor, via its AIController brain component or a UBehaviorTreeComponent. It also names the sibling family (pause_behavior_tree, resume_behavior_tree, restart_behavior_tree, run_behavior_tree) and how it differs, so an agent can separate it from alternatives without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use and when-not: editor world only, never PIE; and it states that unlike pause_behavior_tree the stop cannot be undone with resume_behavior_tree, directing the agent to restart_behavior_tree or run_behavior_tree instead. Error conditions (unknown actor, no BT component, tree still started) are spelled out.

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