reset_game_mode_override

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds substantial context beyond that: it explains exactly what is cleared (the per-world GameMode override back to null), the fallback behavior (world falls back to engine's URL/INI DefaultGameMode), the scope (acts on the current editor world), and even the return fields. This is rich behavioral disclosure that complements the annotations without contradicting them.

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 two tightly written sentences followed by a return summary. The most important information—the inverse relationship and the clearing effect—is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place by adding useful detail without waste.

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 zero-parameter mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the operation, the exact setting affected, the fallback behavior, the scope, and the return structure. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rules. The description reinforces this by explicitly stating 'Takes no parameters,' which adds clarity even though the empty schema already makes it clear.

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?

States a specific verb ('clears') and resource ('per-world GameMode override (AWorldSettings::DefaultGameMode)'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling set_game_mode_override by explicitly naming it as the inverse operation. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does and how it relates to the alternative.

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 gives clear context by identifying the tool as the inverse of set_game_mode_override, which implies when to use it (to remove an override that was previously set). It does not explicitly state prerequisites or when not to use it, but the inverse relationship provides strong routing guidance.

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