ue_attach_actor

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that moving parent moves child, and explains attach rules controlling initial position. However, it does not cover failure modes, permissions, or effects on existing children.

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 efficient: one sentence for purpose, one for usage context, then a list of args. No redundant information. It is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameter meanings adequately. It does not address error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., actors in same level), or detailed behavior for each attach rule, but is sufficient for common use.

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 explain all parameters. It describes child_label, parent_label, socket, and attach_rule with examples. However, it does not explain the KEEP_RELATIVE attach rule, leaving one parameter's semantics incomplete.

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 clearly states the verb 'Aggancia' (attaches) and resource 'attore' (actor), explains the effect (moving parent moves child), and gives real-world examples (lights to lamppost). It distinguishes from sibling 'ue_detach_actor' by its nature of composing scenes.

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 this is for composing scenes instead of leaving objects unbound, implying when to use. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites, but the sibling 'ue_detach_actor' implicitly provides the alternative use case.

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