set_default_game_map

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it names the exact persist method (TryUpdateDefaultConfigFile), explains that the .ini is re-read FROM DISK rather than from the in-memory GConfig cache, and frames the disk read as proof the write landed. This is meaningful behavioral context for a mutating config tool, not a restatement of destructiveHint/idempotentHint.

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 action sentence is front-loaded and efficient, and the alternative naming (TryUpdateDefaultConfigFile, disk vs GConfig) earns its space. The trailing 'Returns:' block is a long inline structure dump that is useful given the absence of an output schema but is densely formatted.

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 inline return shape and the verification narrative fill the biggest gap, and the annotations already cover the safety profile. It stops short of completeness because it does not state what happens when only one map is supplied or whether omitted fields are left unchanged.

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 parameters are already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description touches on the map values and implies what verify_disk does via the disk-reread narrative, but adds no syntax, format rules, or package-path guidance 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?

States a specific verb (set) and precise resources (UGameMapsSettings EditorStartupMap / GameDefaultMap) plus the persistence target (VERSIONED Config/DefaultEngine.ini). An agent can immediately distinguish it from the read counterpart get_default_game_map and from the generic set_engine_ini_value sibling.

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 implies its role (a verified writer of the default map settings) and implies a read counterpart exists, but it never explicitly says when to use this over set_project_settings_value or set_engine_ini_value, nor states exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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