set_game_mode_override

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the exact property that is mutated and the shape of the return payload, which is real value. It still omits whether the change is persisted to disk, what happens to a previously set override, and any required editor state, so it remains a moderate contribution.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the action is front-loaded before the return shape. Every element earns its place, and the inline return contract compensates for the absent 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 single-parameter mutation whose safety hints are already in annotations, the description covers what is changed and what comes back, which is the main gap an agent would otherwise have. It is only slightly thin on side effects (persistence, prior override, required world context).

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% and the single parameter already documents that game_mode_class accepts an AGameModeBase-derivative short name or /Script/ path. The description adds no format, default, or constraint information beyond that, so the baseline of 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 names a specific verb and a precisely qualified resource: the AWorldSettings::DefaultGameMode override on the current editor world. An agent immediately knows this writes a World Settings property rather than a game mode asset. It does not explicitly contrast with the obvious sibling (reset_game_mode_override) or with the other set_game_mode_* setters, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over reset_game_mode_override or the narrower setters (set_game_mode_hud_class, set_game_mode_default_pawn, etc.), nor whether the editor world must be loaded/current. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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