set_network_authority

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

Goes well past the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true) by disclosing that only the in-memory Role of that single placed instance changes, that RemoteRole and replication settings are untouched, that there is no undo entry and the level is not marked dirty, and that authority_set verifies the readback. The one gap is that it doesn't say whether this requires an editor world / specific context, but the operational blast radius is unusually well documented.

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 purpose, then constraints, then sibling routing, then return shape — logical and dense. It is on the long side, and the exhaustive return-field list is verbose, but with no output schema declared that line is justified rather than wasteful.

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 annotations, no output schema, and full parameter coverage, this covers everything an agent needs: valid inputs, error behavior, scope of effect, undo/dirty-state implications, verification via authority_set, and return fields.

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 real meaning beyond the schema: the object-name-vs-label lookup rule, the case-insensitivity, and the pre-mutation validation that rejects any other authority string. It does not add format examples or naming conventions for actor_name.

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 (Set), the exact resource (local net role / AActor::SetRole of an editor-world actor), the accepted value set, and how the actor is located. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like get_net_role and list_replicated_actors, which are named as read paths.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: read roles with get_net_role or list_replicated_actors, and control replication with configure_replication or set_actor_replicates. It also states the failure condition (any value other than the four listed is an error before anything changes), so the agent knows when this call is valid.

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