set_behavior_class

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=true), and the description adds meaningful context: the property is protected in 5.7 and must be set via reflection, plus a return shape including a 'saved' flag. It does not contradict annotations and adds behavioral detail beyond structured fields.

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: the action and its special implementation detail are front-loaded, and the return shape is stated compactly. No filler text.

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 simple setter with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, the description is complete. It compensates for the absent output schema by explicitly stating the return shape, giving the agent everything needed to invoke and interpret the call.

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 are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what is already provided, so the 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?

The description uses a precise verb+resource ('Set the BehaviorClass of a UGameplayBehaviorConfig') and adds implementation context ('via reflection; the field is protected in 5.7'), making it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like create_behavior_config or get_behavior_config_info.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus related behavior-config tools, nor are prerequisites or exclusions stated. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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