set_game_mode_hud_class

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

Annotations declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=true), and the description adds substantive behavioral detail beyond that: the Blueprint package is marked dirty but not saved, native-class values are lost on editor close, and hud_class is read back from the CDO. These are exactly the side effects and lifetime semantics an agent needs.

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-loads the core action, then persistence caveats, then the return shape in three tight sentences. Nothing is wasted, and the Returns line is necessary because there is no output schema.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers persistence, lifetime, and return values well. It leaves one gap: it doesn't say what happens when game_mode_class is omitted (e.g. falling back to the world's default GameMode), which an agent targeting the right CDO would need.

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 the three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only lightly touches parameters (hud_class is read back from the CDO; game_mode_class implied by 'the GameMode'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 precise verb+resource: setting AGameModeBase::HUDClass on the GameMode's CDO. The resource name distinguishes it cleanly from the many sibling setters (set_game_mode_game_state_class, set_game_mode_player_state_class, etc.) without needing to open 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 must be persisted with save_asset, while a native class's change is temporary (persistable false). It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling setters or state exclusions, so it stops short of a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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