set_gameplay_cue_notify_static_properties

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnly=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing that it writes to the CDO, saves without recompiling, and that an unregistered tag aborts before any write (near-atomic failure) – useful mutation context beyond the annotations.

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 tight sentences plus an explicit return shape; the core action is front-loaded and no sentence is filler. It is dense but every clause carries actionable information (target object, mirroring, constraint, failure mode).

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, but the description compensates by spelling out the full return object inline (properties_set, gameplay_cue_tag, gameplay_cue_name, is_override, set). Combined with mutation and failure semantics, an agent has enough to invoke and interpret results; only explicit sibling routing is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: GameplayCueTag is mirrored into GameplayCueName, and the two optional params are linked by an 'at least one' constraint. That relational/format detail justifies above baseline.

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), the exact properties (GameplayCueTag/GameplayCueName and IsOverride), and the target object (the CDO of a UGameplayCueNotify_Static Blueprint). The 'Static' qualifier implicitly separates it from the actor/burst/looping cue-notify setters, but it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

It gives a real usage constraint ('Needs at least one of the two') and a failure condition ('an unregistered tag fails before anything is written'), which is stronger than nothing. But it never says when to prefer this over set_gameplay_cue_notify_actor_properties or the burst/looping variants, leaving the alternative selection to be inferred from the type name.

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