force_net_update

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

The description states the tool is effectively a no-op ('nothing is sent', 'forced is always true'), which directly contradicts the annotations declaring destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false. An agent trusting the annotations would treat this as a state-destroying, non-idempotent write, while the description says no state changes at all.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the critical no-op caveat, then the return shape; every sentence carries information and there is no filler. Slightly dense in the middle clause but well ordered.

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 output schema, the description supplies the return shape itself, and with a single fully-documented parameter it leaves nothing an agent needs to call the tool correctly. Complete for a one-parameter no-op tool.

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% and the single parameter's description already explains label matching and first-match behavior. The description's 'found by label' adds nothing beyond the schema, so the 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 gives a specific verb and resource (Call AActor::ForceNetUpdate) scoped precisely to an editor-world actor located by label, and the 'Returns: { actor_name, forced }' clause pins the contract. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like flush_net_dormancy or set_actor_replicates without opening the schema.

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?

It explains the runtime effect clearly ('the editor world has no net driver, so nothing is sent'), which implicitly signals when the tool is and isn't meaningful, but it never states a when-to-use rule and names no alternative sibling. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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