set_gameplay_effect_modifier_attribute_curve

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true). The description adds useful context beyond them: the AttributeBased precondition, the remapping semantics, and an inline return shape with readback/verification fields (curve_table_matches, row_name_matches, row_exists, set). It omits what the write overwrites, which is the one notable gap.

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?

The functional purpose is front-loaded in a single efficient sentence. The inline 'Returns:' field list is dense but earns its place since no output schema exists, so the structure is appropriate if slightly heavy.

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 5-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the precondition, the operation's effect, and the return shape. It is nearly complete, missing only failure/overwrite behavior.

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% and the property descriptions already explain aliases, prerequisites, and the role of each path/row. The description's 'CurveTable row' framing largely restates the schema rather than adding format or constraint detail, so 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?

Names a specific verb (Set) and resource (the AttributeCurve / CurveTable row on a GE modifier), plus the semantic effect: 'the captured attribute is remapped through the curve instead of used directly.' The precondition 'whose magnitude is already AttributeBased' distinguishes it from the attribute_based sibling, though no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of 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?

Provides clear context for correct use: the modifier's magnitude must already be AttributeBased (and the schema reiterates 'call set_gameplay_effect_modifier_attribute_based first'). It does not, however, state when to prefer this over the custom_curve sibling or any explicit exclusion, so it is not a 5.

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