set_blueprint_function_pure

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

Annotations already mark this destructive and idempotent, and the description adds the specific form of destruction (turning a function pure REMOVES its exec pins and drops existing wires via reconstruct) plus the PIE refusal behavior and the fact that is_pure is re-read after compile as evidence rather than an echo. This is well beyond what the annotations convey and is consistent with them.

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 purpose and the critical ordering warning are front-loaded, and the parenthetical detail about FDelegateEditorBinding::IsBindingValid justifies its length by explaining why the tool matters. It is dense and long but nearly every clause carries actionable information; minor trimming would help.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return contract itself (blueprint_name, function_name, is_pure, was_pure, changed, function_flags) and explains the one non-obvious field. Combined with the destructive-warning and PIE constraints, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 parameters are already documented; the description adds value by clarifying that is_pure is the same flag the reader tool exposes and that the flag is re-read post-compile, giving the parameter a verifiable meaning. It does not add much on force/blueprint_path beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource (mark a Blueprint function pure/impure) and grounds it in a concrete editor concept (the 'Pure' checkbox) with a precise consequence (no exec pins, re-evaluated on read). It also distinguishes itself from the reader sibling get_blueprint_functions_list's is_pure, which reads the same flag.

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?

It gives an explicit prerequisite chain: it is REQUIRED to complete a UMG property binding because add_widget_property_binding reports valid:false until it runs. It further specifies ordering ('do this BEFORE building the function's body, not after') and routes the caller to the reader tool for verification.

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