Clear Player Input Override

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: what state is mutated (override flag, throttle/steer values) and that queued shots are discarded. It does not cover auth/permission needs or what happens if no override is active, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

A single sentence with the human-facing intent front-loaded and three concrete effects trailing it. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema and a simple state-reset scope, the description gives enough for correct invocation and covers the side effects an agent should anticipate. Only minor gaps remain (error/no-op behavior when no override is active).

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no schema surface for the description to compensate for; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. The description correctly conveys that the operation is argument-free.

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?

States a specific verb+resource and enumerates the concrete effects: disables the override, zeroes throttle/steer, drops queued shots. It reads clearly as the inverse of the sibling unity_set_player_input, but never names that sibling, so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

"Hand control back to the human" implies the situation (an override is currently active and you want to release it), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no alternative tool is named. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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