configure_replication

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value: it discloses that both flags are read back, that physics is a no-op reported via not_applied rather than silently ignored, and that lifecycle gates whether movement replication matters at all. It stops short of stating what 'destructive' means here -- e.g. the effect on an already-replicated running session.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the two clarifying caveats and the return shape. It is a little verbose in restating 'Both are read back' and then enumerating previous/new/actual settings, but no sentence is wasted given there is no output schema.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what is applied, what is not applied, the parameter dependency, and the full return shape -- so an agent can call it and interpret the response. The missing piece is prerequisite context (net mode / authority requirements) for a replication setting to have any effect.

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% and the parameter descriptions already explain the physics no-op and the movement/lifecycle dependency, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces the physics quirk and the dependency without adding format, defaults, or interaction rules the schema lacks. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Configures the replication of an editor-world actor') and enumerates exactly what is toggled: movement (bReplicateMovement) and lifecycle (bReplicates). It is clearer than a bare setter, but it never distinguishes itself from the overlapping siblings set_actor_replicate_movement and set_actor_replicates, which do much of the same work one flag at a time.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of conditions, and no pointer to the sibling setters that configure the same flags (set_actor_replicate_movement, set_actor_replicates, set_replication_condition). The one useful note -- that physics has no switch of its own -- is a behavioral fact rather than routing advice, so the agent gets no help deciding between this combined setter and the granular alternatives.

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