set_attribute_base_value

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

With annotations already declaring destructive=true and idempotent=true, the description adds real semantic value: modifiers keep applying on top of the new base, and set=false (with no matching registered attribute set) is explicitly not an error. It lacks any note on persistence, permissions, or undoability, keeping it from a 5.

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?

The set semantics and the non-error failure mode are front-loaded and earn their place. The trailing 'Returns:' line partially duplicates the earlier 'Returns the read-back base_value and current value' phrasing, a minor redundancy.

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 compensates by naming the return fields and their roles (set flag, read-back base value, current value). For a 3-parameter mutation tool this is close to complete, though it omits the safety/permission context a destructive write might warrant.

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 three parameters are already fully documented (including the label-vs-name caveat for actor_name and the case-insensitive SetClass.Attribute matching). The description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond the schema, 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 (base value of one attribute on an editor-world actor's ability system component) and even names the underlying API (SetNumericAttributeBase). It clearly differentiates from read siblings like get_attribute_value and from meta siblings like set_attribute_meta_on_set_class.

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 context (editor-world actor, ability system component, active modifiers staying applied) but never states when to prefer this over alternatives such as set_attribute_meta_on_set_class or applying a gameplay effect. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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