set_gameplay_effect_stacking

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. The description usefully adds that the mutation targets the CDO (asset-default level, not a runtime instance) and discloses the return payload keys, but says nothing about persistence, compile/save requirements, or what happens to stacks already counted at runtime.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by the return shape. No filler; the second sentence earns its place because no output schema exists.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the target object, the fields being set, and the return keys. It is only missing usage framing (when to prefer this over related GameplayEffect setters and whether the asset must be saved), which keeps it short of a 5.

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 each parameter (including the blueprint_name alias and the two policy strings) is already documented in the schema. The description only restates the parameter groups at a high level without adding format or interaction semantics beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (set stacking policy on a GameplayEffect CDO) and enumerates the exact sub-fields touched (StackingType, limit, refresh/reset policies). It is clearly distinguishable from other GameplayEffect setters such as duration/period, though it never names a sibling or the related inspection tool.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., the GE Blueprint must exist / be the intended asset), and no pointer to alternatives like get_gameplay_effect_info for inspection or get_gameplay_effect_modifiers for the modifier side. Usage must be inferred purely from the tool name.

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