set_game_mode_game_state_class

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real context the annotations can't: the value is written to the CDO, a Blueprint package is dirtied but not saved, and a native class value only survives until the editor closes (persistable false). This goes meaningfully beyond the structured safety flags, though it never explains why destructiveHint is true for a property setter.

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 core action, followed by persistence caveats and a compact return shape. Dense but every sentence carries information; no filler. Slightly over-packed for a single paragraph but not wasteful.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description supplies the return shape (game_mode_class, game_state_class, already_set, persistable), which is exactly what an agent needs. Combined with the persistence caveats, this is near-complete for a mutation tool whose annotations carry the safety profile.

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 all three parameters are documented in the schema itself (including the NoClear empty/None rejection and the path precedence note). The description only adds that game_state_class is read back from the CDO, which is marginal over the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource (set the AGameModeBase::GameStateClass UPROPERTY on the GameMode's CDO) with enough precision to distinguish it from siblings like set_game_mode_player_state_class or set_game_mode_hud_class. An agent can identify exactly which property is being mutated without opening the 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?

Gives clear operational context: a Blueprint GameMode's package is marked dirty and must be persisted with save_asset, while a native class's value is ephemeral. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, but the persistence guidance is genuinely useful routing information.

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