set_actor_net_dormancy

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

Annotations already declare destructive/idempotent/non-open-world, but the description adds real context beyond them: only the single placed instance is affected, the package is not marked dirty, and nothing is saved. It also clarifies the return value is a parsed enum name rather than a live read-back, which is genuinely useful.

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-loads the core action, then the scope/persistence caveat, then the read-back warning and return shape. Dense but tightly packed with no filler; the three-sentence structure is appropriate for the information carried.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape, the single-instance blast radius, and the non-persistence behavior, matching the annotations. It leaves minor gaps (e.g. where the actor must exist) but is otherwise complete for correct invocation.

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 dormancy enum values/prefix rules are fully documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description reinforces the label-based lookup and enum parsing but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 NetDormancy), the resource (an editor-world actor found by label), and even the underlying engine call (AActor::SetNetDormancy). An agent can distinguish this from sibling replication tools like set_actor_replicates or flush_net_dormancy without opening a 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to get_actor_replication_info for reading the state back, and warns that the returned dormancy value is not a read-back. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance against other replication-setting siblings, but the read-vs-write boundary is clearly drawn.

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