set_num_extended_polygroup_layers

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint/destructiveHint/readOnlyHint, yet the description adds substantial context: the dedup mechanism (only reshapes attributes when the count differs), the post-set read-back via GetNumExtendedPolygroupLayers, and the exact failure condition (call fails when applied count != request). This goes well beyond the annotation flags.

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 action and target, and the behavioral detail earns its place. It is somewhat long and the fully-qualified API path is arguably unnecessary, but nothing is redundant given there is no output schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape ({actor_name, requested_num_layers, num_polygroup_layers, applied}), the semantics of 'applied', and the failure condition. Combined with full schema coverage and annotations, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result.

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_name, num_layers) are already documented. The description references the layer count conceptually but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema's '>= 0' note, 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?

States a precise verb+resource ('Set the number of extended polygroup layers') and pins the exact target ('live dynamic mesh of a DynamicMeshActor'), even naming the underlying API. It is unambiguously distinct from the sibling get_num_extended_polygroup_layers by the set/get verb pairing.

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 idempotent behavior and the read-back verification, which implies when it is safe to call, but it never states when to use this tool versus the getter or other polygroup tools, and names no alternatives. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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