ue5_set_pie_transform

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool performs a runtime teleport and that it verifies the new transform via read-back. However, it does not disclose what happens on failure (e.g., if the actor is not found, if verification fails), whether the operation is reversible, or any side effects. The read-back verification is a positive behavioral disclosure, but the failure behavior is left unclear.

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 compact: one sentence with a clear verb, scope, and verification behavior. The bilingual repetition doubles the length without adding new information, which is a minor inefficiency. The key constraint ('at least one') is included, and the structure is front-loaded with the action.

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 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the core operation and the verification behavior. However, it lacks details about error handling, what happens if the actor doesn't exist, and whether the read-back verification returns the verified transform or just a success flag. Given the runtime mutation context and no annotations, a bit more context would be valuable.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds the constraint that at least one of location/rotation must be provided, which is useful. It does not add format details beyond the schema's [x,y,z] and [pitch,yaw,roll] hints, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 ('Teleport'), a specific resource ('PIE Actor'), and the exact scope ('location and/or rotation, at least one'). It also mentions read-back verification, which distinguishes it from a plain setter. The bilingual text is redundant but not harmful.

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 implies when to use it: at runtime in PIE, when you need to move/rotate an actor. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings (e.g., ue5_read_pie_property for reading, ue5_execute_command for other runtime actions). The 'at least one' constraint is a useful usage hint, but no exclusions or alternatives are given.

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