set_component_definition

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=true and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'editor world' context and an inline return shape, but does not disclose what happens to a previously assigned definition, whether registration is affected, or any permission requirements.

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 sentences with the mutation and its target front-loaded, followed by the return shape. No wasted filler, though the inline return signature is slightly clunky against the otherwise terse prose.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the action, scope, and return fields, which compensates for the missing output schema. It falls short only on prerequisites and side-effect behavior that a mutation tool with destructive=true would ideally state.

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 (actor_label, definition_path) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra syntax, format, or resolution guidance beyond what the schema provides, 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?

States a specific verb (Set/change) and a precisely named resource (USmartObjectDefinition on the USmartObjectComponent of an actor). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling get_smart_object_component_definition, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.

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 phrase 'in the editor world' implies the editor-only context, giving some usage signal, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no indication of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as register_smart_object_actor or the getter.

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