set_component_replication

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=true, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it discloses that the operation compiles the Blueprint and re-reads the flag off the template, and explains the RPC-routing nuance (SCS components keep RPCs regardless; runtime components do not). The PIE-refusal hazard lives in the schema, not here, which keeps this 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?

It is front-loaded with the core action and organized around purpose, caveat, sibling routing, and return shape. Dense but purposeful, with the only mild bloat in the long mid-sentence parenthetical about RPC routing.

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, but the description supplies the return shape ({ blueprint_name, component_name, replicates }) and notes replicates is re-read after compiling. Combined with the schema's force/PIE warning and the annotations' safety profile, 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters (including the force/PIE caveat and the blueprint_path alias). The description only adds semantics for 'replicates' via the bReplicates reference, so schema does the heavy lifting and 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 states a precise verb+resource pair (set bReplicates on ONE SCS component TEMPLATE of a Blueprint), explicitly clarifies the archetype-vs-spawned-instance distinction, and names the sibling set_bp_class_replication for the actor-level equivalent. An agent can separate this from the near-identical siblings without opening any schema.

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 routes the agent to the correct alternative ('For the owning actor use set_bp_class_replication') and clarifies the template-vs-runtime-component scope. It gives clear context but no explicit exclusions or preconditions beyond that one sibling hand-off.

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