ue_transform_actor

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses that only provided components are changed (a key behavioral trait) and implies a write operation via 'Set'. However, it lacks details like coordinate space conventions, units for rotation (though schema states degrees), or success/failure behavior, so it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Zero waste, every clause adds meaningful information about flexibility and behavior.

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 tool is simple, but with no output schema and no annotations, it would benefit from a note about return values or side effects. However, the description clarifies the core behavior well and the schema covers parameter details, making it sufficiently complete for the task.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that parameters can be combined arbitrarily and omitted ones are not affected. This goes beyond the schema by clarifying the partial update semantics, which is crucial for correct usage.

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 sets an actor's transform (location, rotation, and/or scale). It specifies the action and scope precisely. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like ue_set_property, which could also modify actor properties, so it doesn't fully earn a 5.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ue_set_property or ue_call_function. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from purpose alone.

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