set_actor_net_cull_distance

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scoping detail that it applies to editor-world actors and that the value is linear cm, though it does not explain why the operation is considered destructive (e.g. whether it affects replication visibility) beyond what annotations imply.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with the operation front-loaded and the return shape noted briefly. Since no output schema exists, the returns line earns its place, though the parenthetical about cm slightly duplicates the 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 2-parameter mutation tool with full annotation coverage, the description is largely complete: it defines the set operation, the audience (editor-world actor), the unit, and the return shape in lieu of an output schema. The main gap is the absence of routing guidance relative to sibling net-setting tools.

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 both parameters (actor_label, distance) are already documented in the schema, including the squaring behavior. The description only restates the cm unit already present in the schema, adding little beyond the baseline.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Set AActor::NetCullDistanceSquared') and clarifies the scope ('editor-world actor'), so an agent knows exactly what is being mutated. However, it does not differentiate itself from the closely related sibling get_actor_net_cull_distance, leaving the read/write split to be inferred.

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 and no mention of the natural alternative get_actor_net_cull_distance or the other net-config siblings. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the write counterpart of the getter.

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