set_property_value

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructive/idempotent/false read-only) by disclosing the undo/package-dirtying notification chain and, critically, a WARNING that success:true can be a false positive (FGameplayTag on a placed actor reported success but left the tag empty). That is exactly the kind of hard-won behavioral caveat annotations cannot express.

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-loads the core action, then alternatives, then the caveat and return shape. It is dense and somewhat long, but nearly every clause carries operational value (gate, notification chain, false-positive warning).

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, it supplies scope, preconditions, safety/undo behavior, sibling routing, an inline return shape, and a verification caveat. Nothing an agent needs to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents value, object_path, and property_name in detail. The description reinforces the 'ONE property / ONE instance' scoping and the CPF_Edit gate but adds no per-parameter syntax beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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+resource+scope ('Write ONE property on ONE object instance, editor world only') and names the exact mechanism (CPF_Edit/!EditConst gate, Modify/PreEditChange/PostEditChange). It clearly distinguishes itself from set_properties, set_component_property, and call_function.

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: use set_properties for several names, set_component_property for a component's own property (which validates gameplay tags), call_function/call_object_method when a setter is needed. This is textbook when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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