set_hlod_layer_settings

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint/idempotentHint) by disclosing the partial-update contract, the save-on-write behavior, and the non-obvious side effect that sending cell_size or loading_range also enables spatial loading. These are exactly the traits an agent needs and cannot infer from structured fields.

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-loaded with the core action, then partial-update and side-effect notes, then an explicit return shape. Every sentence carries information; the returns block is somewhat verbose but justified since 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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return fields inline, the mutation/save semantics, the side effect on spatial loading, and the accepted layer-type values. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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 the enum values for layer_type ('Instancing'|'MeshApproximate'|'Custom'|'CustomHLODActor') that the schema lacks (0 enums), plus the coupled behavior of cell_size/loading_range. This meaningfully exceeds the schema.

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 (sets), resource (streaming-grid settings / layer type on a UHLODLayer), and the side effect of saving. This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling setters like set_hlod_layer_actors and set_hlod_layer_parent, which touch different aspects of the same asset.

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 explains partial-update semantics ('only the fields you send are touched'), which implies how to call it, but never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_hlod_layer_info or set_hlod_layer_parent. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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