net_set_owner_reference

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool adds a node; it does not describe side effects, prerequisites like network/replication setup, node placement behavior, or whether the operation mutates the blueprint beyond inserting the node.

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 short, front-loaded with the core action, and includes both a KB reference and an example. Every element earns its place, though the example path is somewhat arbitrary.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the tool still lacks guidance on parameter usage and when to choose it over alternatives. For a four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description leaves important gaps.

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 undocumented parameters. The example only demonstrates blueprint_name; save, compile, and node_position are not explained, though their names and defaults provide partial hints.

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 and resource: 'Add an AActor.SetOwner call node'. The phrase 'for server-side ownership setup' clarifies the intended purpose and distinguishes this from related sibling tools like net_set_actor_replicates or add_get_owner_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?

'For server-side ownership setup' gives a clear usage context, and the example demonstrates a concrete invocation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives such as net_set_actor_replicates.

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