set_gc_connection_settings

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint, readOnlyHint=false) by disclosing the undo transaction, invalidation and save behavior, that a failed save makes success false, that omitted fields reset to defaults, and that unrecognized connection types silently become PointImplicit. These are exactly the non-obvious behaviors an agent needs.

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?

Front-loads the core action and then layers constraints and return behavior in dense but purposeful sentences. Each sentence carries information, though the run-on structure could be tightened slightly.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers side effects (undo/save), failure semantics, field-write behavior, enum fallback, and even the returned fields, leaving nothing an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 genuine meaning the schema lacks: every field is written each call so omitted ones revert to defaults, and an invalid connection type silently falls back to PointImplicit. That materially changes how an agent should populate the parameters.

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 (write), resource (UGeometryCollection asset), and enumerates the exact properties written (cluster connection type, EnableClustering, ClusterGroupIndex, MaxClusterLevel, bounds filtering margin). It explicitly differentiates itself from siblings cluster_geometry_collection and compute_gc_proximity, so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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?

Clearly scopes what the tool does NOT do ('the bone hierarchy is not rebuilt') and names the alternative tools for cluster/proximity generation. It stops short of a crisp 'use this when...' statement, but the exclusions and sibling routing give strong contextual guidance.

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