ue_attach_actor

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It explains the basic behavior (moving parent moves child) and the attach_rule parameter, but does not disclose what happens if the child is already attached to another parent, or any error conditions. Partially adequate.

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 concise with two sentences of context and a clear Args list. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the key concept 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?

Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not mention return values, error handling, or prerequisites like whether the actor needs to be in the level. Some gaps remain.

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?

The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining socket ('nome del socket sul padre, se ne ha') and listing the three possible values for attach_rule. All four parameters are covered, though schema coverage is technically 0% because the description is separate.

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 attaches one actor to another, with the concrete example 'moving the parent moves the child'. It also distinguishes from the sibling 'ue_detach_actor' by implication and provides a use case for composing a scene.

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 explains when to use the tool (composing a scene by parenting objects) and contrasts it with leaving objects unlinked. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or mention alternative siblings like 'ue_spawn_actor', but the context is clear.

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