set_ability_cooldown

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

The annotations already declare mutation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotency, and destructiveness, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the behavioral meaning of a cooldown ('gates re-use until it expires') and a return contract, but says nothing about permissions, side effects on the CDO, or what happens to any pre-existing cooldown.

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?

It is two tight segments: the action/semantics sentence first, then a compact Returns block. Every token earns its place and the key action verb is front-loaded.

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 inline Returns object effectively supplies the return contract (including the useful cooldown_effect_class_matches flag). Combined with annotations and full schema coverage, this is nearly complete; it only omits prerequisites and how the user would undo or replace a cooldown.

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, including the blueprint_name alias and the typical HasDuration nature of the effect. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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+resource ('Set the Cooldown GameplayEffect class on a GameplayAbility CDO') and even explains the runtime consequence ('gates re-use until it expires'), which is unusually informative. It does not, however, reference any sibling (e.g. set_ability_cost) to sharpen the boundary, so it falls short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. the ability must exist first), and no mention of alternatives such as set_ability_cost or how to clear a cooldown. The parenthetical only explains semantics, not when to invoke the tool.

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