set_blueprint_ai_controller

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosure. It transparently states the mutation ('sets the AI Controller Class in the Blueprint's Class Defaults') and the key precondition ('must be a Pawn or Character subclass'). It does not disclose side effects such as overwriting existing values or compile/save requirements, but the core behavior is clear.

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 uses a clean structure: purpose, context, args, returns, KB link, and example. Every block adds useful information with no filler, and the key action is front-loaded.

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 simple setter with no output schema, it covers what an agent needs: purpose, parameter meaning, return keys, an example, and a knowledge-base pointer. Missing explicit error-handling or overwrite semantics keeps it from a 5.

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%, but the description explains both parameters: blueprint_name as a Pawn/Character subclass with an example path, and controller_class as a short class name with default 'AIController'. This compensates for the bare schema, though the path vs. asset-name format could be slightly clearer.

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 verb and resource: 'Set the AIControllerClass on a Pawn/Character Blueprint.' It clarifies that this modifies Class Defaults, which differentiates it from sibling tools like create_ai_controller or generic set_blueprint_property.

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 phrase 'which is required for AI movement (MoveToActor, SimpleMoveToActor) to work' gives a clear trigger condition for when this tool is relevant. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for most agents.

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