trigger_behavior_on_actor

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds substantial non-obvious context: triggered=false means the behavior refused, nothing is saved or undoable (runtime only), and the exact error conditions (missing BehaviorClass, absent subsystem, missing actor, non-Pawn). This goes well beyond the annotation flags.

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-loads the core action, then layers runtime/error caveats and a compact return shape in one dense but purposeful paragraph. No filler sentences, though the single run-on structure is slightly heavy.

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 itself ({config_path, actor_label, behavior_class, triggered}), plus error conditions, persistence semantics, and prerequisite tool references. An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the result correctly.

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 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only marginal meaning (that actor_label must resolve to a Pawn, that config_path is a content path), which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (start), resource (UGameplayBehaviorConfig's UGameplayBehavior), and target (a Pawn found by label in the editor world). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like end_behavior_on_actor, create_behavior_config, and set_behavior_class 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?

Gives clear context: it names set_behavior_class as the way to supply a BehaviorClass and get_behavior_subsystem_info for the subsystem, and end_behavior_on_actor as the stop path. It also lists conditions that make the call an error. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use-this-vs-that comparison but the routing signals are strong.

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