set_physics_gravity

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

Despite annotations already flagging destructiveHint=true/idempotentHint=true, the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond them: it writes to the VERSIONED ini, uses TryUpdateDefaultConfigFile, and re-reads from disk with FConfigFile::Read to prove the write landed. That is exactly the kind of mutation/verification context 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?

The first sentence is front-loaded and dense with the operation, target, and verification. The trailing 'Returns' block is a large raw object literal, but since no output schema exists it earns its place; it is verbose but not redundant.

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 compensates by enumerating the return fields, and the annotations cover the safety profile. It is nearly complete, though it omits whether the change requires an editor restart or affects a running world.

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 gravity_z and verify_disk are already documented in the schema. The description echoes the write-and-verify flow but adds no unit, range, or format 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?

The description names the exact target (UPhysicsSettings DefaultGravityZ), the specific persistence path (versioned Config/DefaultEngine.ini via TryUpdateDefaultConfigFile), and the verification behavior. This is a specific verb+resource that an agent can clearly distinguish from sibling settings tools like set_world_gravity or configure_gravity.

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 implies usage (persistent project-config write with disk verification) but never states when to choose this over alternatives such as set_world_gravity or configure_gravity, nor any preconditions. Usage is inferable from the persistence framing but not spelled out.

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