use_smart_object

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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the runtime-initialization precondition, the failure mode when headless, and the exact idempotent return semantics (already_occupied without re-occupying). This complements readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true with environment and error behavior the annotations 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?

Front-loaded with the action, then rationale, gate, idempotency and return shape; every clause carries information. It is slightly dense with parentheticals, but no sentence is filler.

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, yet the description enumerates the returned fields and covers the mutation semantics, the environment precondition, and the idempotent path. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly 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 both parameters are already documented, but the description adds rationale: it explains why the key is actor_label (a FSmartObjectClaimHandle cannot be rebuilt from a string) and that behavior_class drives the behavior definition, which is more than the schema conveys.

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 and resource ('Claim a free slot on an actor's SmartObject component and immediately mark it occupied') and explicitly frames it as a single-call claim+occupy keyed by actor_label, which implicitly separates it from the two-step claim_handle path used by siblings like claim_smart_object.

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: usable only once the subsystem runtime is initialized (PIE/BeginPlay), returns a clean error headless, and is safe to re-call because an already-occupied slot returns already_occupied. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives (claim_smart_object / release_smart_object) explicitly, so the routing is inferable rather than spelled out.

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