crowd_configure_detour

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses an important conditional behavior: if the Blueprint still uses PathFollowingComponent, the command returns structured guidance. However, it does not describe the mutation effects on the Blueprint, whether changes are persistent, or what the staged save/compile behavior is.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose and precondition. The KB pointer and example are useful, but the empty example invocation is only minimally illustrative for a 13-parameter tool.

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 13-parameter configuration tool with no schema descriptions and no annotations, the description leaves important gaps: it does not explain parameter semantics, the effects of configuration changes, or how to choose values. The output schema exists, but the agent still lacks enough information to invoke the tool correctly with non-default options.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the 13 undocumented parameters. It does not explain what any parameter does beyond the raw schema titles, nor does it clarify the meaning of defaults like avoidance_quality='good' or collision_query_range=600. The example call with no arguments adds no parameter guidance.

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 specific verb+resource: 'Configure Detour crowd options' and an explicit precondition ('when an AIController already uses UCrowdFollowingComponent'). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling crowd_configure_rvo and other AI configuration tools.

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 explicitly says when to use it (when UCrowdFollowingComponent is already in use) and explains what happens in the opposite case (default PathFollowingComponent triggers structured guidance). It stops short of naming an alternative tool, but the conditional guidance is strong.

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