control_editor

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

Annotations provide no safety hints (all false), so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions actions like 'run console commands' and 'simulate input' but omits potential side effects, prerequisites, or irreversible changes, leaving the agent without critical safety information.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the most common actions. It contains no fluff, but its extreme brevity for a tool with 32 parameters borders on under-specification.

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 32 parameters, an action enum of 40+ values, and no output schema, this description is far from complete. It provides no examples, no mapping of actions to required arguments, and no mention of expected outputs or pitfalls.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 41%, the description needed to compensate by explaining key parameters or action-argument relationships. It names no parameters and offers no mapping between the listed actions and the many generic fields (fov, key, axis, speed, etc.), leaving the agent to guess.

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 enumerates distinct editor control operations (PIE, viewport camera, console commands, screenshots, input simulation), distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on assets, actors, or levels. However, it is not a single specific verb+resource; it is a broad list of capabilities.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like control_actor, manage_level, or system_control. The description simply lists capabilities without any contextual triggers or exclusions.

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