set_primary_asset_cook_rule

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, readOnly=false, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: it writes DefaultGame.ini, there is no undo, a failed write makes success false, and invalid input errors out before any change. This is exactly the kind of mutation side-effect detail 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 core action and its write semantics are front-loaded, and every sentence carries information (errors, no-undo, priority exclusion, read-back path). It is dense but not padded, though the run-on construction requires close reading.

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 spelling out the return object shape (primary_asset_type, cook_rule, priority, chunk_id, apply_recursively, saved) plus the error conditions and persistence behavior. Nothing needed to invoke or interpret the result 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: chunk_id and apply_recursively are described as overrides applied 'when given,' and it clarifies that cook_rule is returned as the short name of the stored rule. That is slightly more than the schema alone conveys.

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 states a specific verb (Set) on a specific resource (the CookRule of an existing PrimaryAssetTypesToScan rule in Asset Manager project settings), and explicitly contrasts itself with add_primary_asset_rule and remove_primary_asset_rule. An agent can distinguish this from sibling rule-management tools without opening a schema.

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?

It tells the agent exactly when this applies (only for an *existing* rule), what to do when the type is unknown (use add_primary_asset_rule), and how to read results back (get_primary_asset_cook_rules). Exclusions are explicit: priority is not touched here and nothing is rescanned.

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