unreal_set_actor_transform

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Setting the same values twice has no additional effect'. It also discloses the None-keeping behavior ('Any field left as None keeps its current value') and the error format ('Error: <message>') including a hint to list actors. This adds meaningful operational context beyond the annotations.

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 description is well-structured: the core action is front-loaded, followed by a concise note on None behavior, an Args section mapping parameters, a Returns section with error handling, and clear usage examples. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the content is organized for quick scanning.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, parameter semantics, idempotency, None behavior, return format (referencing unreal_spawn_actor's schema), and failure handling. It does not explicitly mention prerequisites like requiring an actor to exist, but the error hint partially addresses that. Given that an output schema exists (though not shown in the input), the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call the tool 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?

The input schema already includes per-parameter descriptions with units (e.g., 'New world location [X, Y, Z] in cm'), so schema coverage is high. The description adds the None-keeping semantics and clarifies that omission leaves fields unchanged, which is not explicitly stated in the schema. It also provides a concrete example of partial modification ('raise the camera rig 200 units' -> location with new Z), reinforcing parameter usage.

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 clear, specific action ('Change the location, rotation and/or scale of an actor already in the level') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like unreal_spawn_actor (creation) and unreal_delete_actor (removal). It explicitly notes the tool modifies an existing actor, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 description provides direct usage guidance with concrete examples: 'Use when: "raise the camera rig 200 units"' and 'Don't use when: creating a new copy (use unreal_spawn_actor)'. It names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it, leaving no inference required.

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