set_exponential_height_fog_properties

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=true, so safety is partly covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it is a partial/patch update (only supplied fields change), applied_count reports how many fields were applied, and the reply reads every property back. It does not, however, address reversibility or the destructiveHint implication.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then scope detail. Two compact sentences plus a return-type line. The return line is justified since no output schema exists, though it could be trimmed slightly for a tool whose main job is mutation.

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 19-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the patch semantics, the color format, and the return shape, which is most of what an agent needs. Missing only explicit prerequisites (actor must already exist / how to identify it) and any note that spawning is a separate tool.

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% (19 params fully annotated), so the schema carries the parameter documentation. The description only adds the color-array format ([R,G,B] or [R,G,B,A]) and the patch semantics, both of which are largely mirrored in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource (ExponentialHeightFog actor's UExponentialHeightFogComponent properties), then enumerates the property groups affected (density/falloff, inscattering, distances, volumetric fog, second layer, directional inscattering). This clearly distinguishes it from the get_ and spawn_ siblings in the same family.

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 partial-update rule ('Only the supplied fields change') implies when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_exponential_height_fog_properties to inspect first or spawn_exponential_height_fog to create. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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