stop_level_sequence_runtime

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description earns credit by disclosing precisely what is destroyed (the hosting ALevelSequenceActor), that the key is forgotten and invalid afterwards, and the exact success/error semantics read back after Stop. This is far more than the annotations convey.

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 action and its side effects, and every clause carries information. Slight deduction for the trailing 'Returns: { ... }' line, which restates the return values already described inline in the preceding sentences.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description properly carries the return contract (player_key, stopped, playing, optional note) and the error condition. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret this destructive call is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by noting the key originates from play_level_sequence_runtime and becomes invalid after this call, which affects how the agent must treat the parameter.

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 description states a precise verb (Stops) and resource (runtime ULevelSequencePlayer keyed by player_key), then names the sibling that produced the key (play_level_sequence_runtime) and the one that would preserve it (pause_level_sequence_runtime). An agent can distinguish this from all three sequence-runtime siblings without opening any 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 routing: 'Use pause_level_sequence_runtime to keep the player' gives the alternative and the condition that selects it. It also covers the non-obvious cases (already-stopped player is still released with stopped=false; a still-playing player is an error and the key is kept), which is exactly the guidance an agent needs to interpret outcomes.

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