unreal_preview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces 'No scene changes occur,' adding clarity. It also discloses limitations (edits only for exact native, unattached StaticMeshActors, not Blueprint actors), the rule of at most one edit per existing actor, and the invalidating condition (changes to tracked actor state invalidate a plan). This exceeds the annotations by explaining constraints and consequences.

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 dense but well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and safety guarantee. Each sentence adds critical information: what is previewed, safety, units, prerequisites, editing constraints, and expected_state behavior. It is concise given the tool's complexity, with no wasted words.

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?

The description covers the essential constraints: units, rotation degrees, actor type limitations, and the expected_state behavior. It does not detail return values, but an output schema exists to cover that. It also doesn't mention error conditions like invalid paths, but the schema constraints (minLength, maxLength) provide basic validation context. Given the complexity of the operation list and the output schema, this is largely complete.

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. It mentions operations and the expected_state parameter but does not explain individual parameters like slot, label, or actor_path in detail. The schema provides enough structure for enum and types, but the description adds no semantic detail beyond naming the operations and expected_state's purpose.

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 tool previews bounded actor operations such as spawns, transforms, materials, metadata, mesh swaps, and copies, and explicitly notes no scene changes occur. While it is a multi-operation tool, it is distinguished from sibling tools like unreal_workflow_preview by its focus on bounded actor edits, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling for contrast.

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 provides context on when to use the tool (previewing actor changes) and states prerequisites (JEV_EXPECTED_PROJECT), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like unreal_workflow_preview or unreal_spatial_preview. It implies usage through purpose but lacks a clear when-not-to-use or mention of alternative tools.

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