set_preserve_scale_ratio

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

The description states the tool writes nothing and is effectively a read-only no-op, but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, i.e. a potentially destructive mutating operation. That is a direct conflict in the safety signal an agent uses to decide whether a call is risky, even though here the description is the more truthful party.

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?

Strongly front-loaded ('DOES NOTHING and says so') and dense with relevant information, but the always-false/no-op point is restated in the body and again in the Returns section, and the return shape is spelled out twice. Minor redundancy rather than waste.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by specifying the exact return shape (applied always false, preserve echoed, note string) plus the reason the tool is inert. For a degenerate one-parameter stub, nothing an agent needs to decide or call 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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already says it is 'accepted and echoed back but never applied'. The description adds no syntax, format or scope detail beyond that, 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?

Opens with a specific, unambiguous verb+resource statement ('DOES NOTHING... the editor's preserve-scale-ratio preference') and even names the underlying engine symbol, UEditorPerProjectUserSettings::bPreserveScaleRatio. It also distinguishes itself from set_actor_transform, which a sibling tool could easily be confused with.

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 states why the tool exists ('kept only so the call fails loudly instead of silently') and where the real setting actually lives ('Editor Preferences > Level Editor > Viewports'), which is exactly the when-not/alternative guidance an agent needs. It also pre-empts a likely misuse by noting it does not affect set_actor_transform.

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