add_teleport_system_to_pawn

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals exactly what will be created: input axis handling, DoOnce, teleport trace functions, projectile path logic, Niagara feedback, and the visualizer attachment. It does not mention side effects like overwriting existing functions or whether the blueprint is compiled/saved, but the implementation detail is substantial.

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 longer than average but well organized into a purpose statement, numbered implementation steps, function creation note, parameter explanations, KB reference, and example. Every major section contributes value; the chapter reference is minor but not distracting.

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?

For a complex multi-step blueprint mutation tool, the description covers purpose, parameters, implementation details, and provides an example call. It does not state prerequisites such as whether the blueprint must already be a VR Pawn or whether existing teleport graphs will be replaced, but overall an agent has enough context to invoke it 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 schema provides zero property descriptions, but the description's Args section explains the meaning and role of every parameter: what blueprint_name targets, what the visualizer blueprint is for, what deadzone_threshold prevents, and what use_projectile_path toggles. This fully compensates for the schema coverage gap.

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 opens with a specific action and target: "Add the complete teleportation system to a VR Pawn Blueprint." It then gives a detailed numbered implementation list, making it unmistakable what the tool accomplishes and clearly distinguishing it from simpler teleport-related tools like add_teleport_node.

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 implies when to use the tool through its focus on a complete VR teleport system, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Given the large sibling toolset with related blueprint-editing tools, explicit routing to an alternative would have made this stronger.

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