set_active_culture

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation and safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: a promise of an 'honest error' for unrecognized culture names and an explicit return shape. It does not, however, explain what the destructive/global side effects of swapping the active culture actually are.

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?

Three tight lines: purpose first, error behavior second, return shape third. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and the most important information 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?

For a one-parameter setter with no output schema, the description covers purpose, failure mode and return shape, which is most of what an agent needs. The remaining gap is the absence of any statement about what changing the active culture affects, though annotations carry the destructive hint.

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 single required parameter already documents valid example formats ('en', 'es-ES', 'ja'). The description adds nothing further about the culture_name parameter, so baseline 3 is 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?

States a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('the editor's active culture/locale'), and grounds it in the engine API (FInternationalization::SetCurrentCulture). The verb cleanly separates it from the sibling read tool get_active_culture without needing to open either 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?

No guidance on when or why to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_active_culture or the localization pipeline tools. The only conditional content is a note about invalid culture names, which is error behavior, not selection guidance.

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