set_gameplay_effect_modifier_attribute_based

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=true), so the description need not restate safety. It adds real value by documenting the rich return payload (including backing_attribute_matches and capture_attribute_readback, which signal a post-set verification readback), useful context absent from any output schema.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in a single clean sentence. The trailing Returns block is long but each field is informative given there is no output schema; it is slightly bulky inline but not redundant.

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 10-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the full return contract. The notable gap is that it never states the destructive consequence — that switching magnitude type likely discards the modifier's prior magnitude configuration — despite destructiveHint=true.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema with defaults, aliases, and enum-like values. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Switch an existing GE modifier's magnitude to AttributeBased' — with the parenthetical clarifying the scaling mechanism. The AttributeBased magnitude mode implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like set_gameplay_effect_modifier_attribute_curve or set_by_caller, though no sibling is named 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?

The description implies usage (switch an existing modifier's magnitude type) but gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance and does not point to alternative magnitude-setting tools such as set_gameplay_effect_modifier_custom or set_gameplay_effect_modifier_attribute_curve. An agent must infer which sibling to pick from the name alone.

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