possess_pawn

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explains the set_view_target_on_possess flag, but does not disclose what happens to the previously possessed pawn, whether a local player/controller must exist, multiplayer constraints, or whether the operation is reversible. These are significant omissions for a control-changing operation.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in one clear sentence, followed by a compact Args list for parameters. There is no wasted text, and every element earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the definition only covers parameter semantics; it lacks usage guidance, safety/behavioral disclosure, and environment prerequisites. For a runtime control operation, these gaps are substantial.

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%, but the description documents all three parameters: actor formats (label, object name, full path from find_actor), player_index as a local player/controller index, and set_view_target_on_possess as a camera-targeting behavior. It compensates well for the schema gap, though it does not restate defaults or add constraints beyond the basic meanings.

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 states a specific verb ('Possess'), resource ('Pawn/Character'), and runtime context ('runtime player controller'). It is the only possession tool among the siblings, and the resource scope distinguishes it from find_actor and set_view_target.

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 explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative tools are named. However, the actor parameter note that a value can be a 'full path returned by find_actor' implies a prerequisite workflow. This is implied usage rather than full routing guidance.

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