set_actor_net_update_frequency

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the meaningful constraint that this mutates an editor-world actor (not a runtime/PIE actor) and states the return shape. It does not explain why the operation is flagged destructive or whether authority/replication state is required.

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 short lines with the operation front-loaded and the return contract appended. No filler. Slightly terse given the gaps in usage and behavior guidance.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description usefully supplies the return shape, which is a real contribution. However, for a destructive, non-read-only setter with no stated prerequisites or consequences, the definition leaves the agent without enough behavioral context to call it confidently.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters and their units (Hz). The description's only added value is restating that min_frequency is optional, which the schema already conveys as non-required. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names the exact property (AActor::NetUpdateFrequency plus optional MinNetUpdateFrequency) and scopes it to an editor-world actor. That is a specific verb+resource an agent can act on. It does not explicitly name the getter sibling, but the property-level precision makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no reference to the counterpart get_actor_net_update_frequency, and no comparison to adjacent setters like set_actor_net_cull_distance or set_actor_net_dormancy. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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