set_mass_spawner_count

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=true), so the description needn't restate it. It usefully adds the mutation mechanism (reflection over a protected property) and, since no output schema exists, the exact return shape { actor_label, count, set }—genuinely additive behavioral context beyond the 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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the mutation is stated first, then the return contract. Nothing is buried and every clause carries information.

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 simple two-parameter setter this is nearly complete: purpose, mutation mechanism, and return shape are all covered, and no output schema exists to defer to. The only missing piece is guidance on preconditions/interaction with sibling tools, which is a minor gap for a tool this narrow.

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 both parameters (actor_label, count) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, 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?

Specific verb ("Set") and resource ("spawn count on an AMassSpawner"), with an implementation note about reflecting over the protected Count property. It pairs naturally against the sibling get_mass_spawner_count, but the description never names that counterpart explicitly, so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_mass_spawner_count or spawn_mass_entities, nor any prerequisite (e.g. PIE active, spawner must exist). The usage context is left entirely to inference from the name.

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