set_scene_capture_2d_properties

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that no capture or save is triggered, that the operation is undoable, and critically that a partial failure leaves already-applied fields set. That non-atomic failure semantics is behavior an agent cannot infer from readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=true / idempotentHint=true, and it directly affects retry strategy.

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 verb, target and written fields, then two sentences covering side effects and return shape. The Returns block duplicates the field list but earns its place because no output schema exists, so the agent has no other source for the response shape.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, everything relevant is present: scope (editor world), side effects (no capture/save, undoable), failure semantics, and a full return-shape description with the *_set flags. Nothing an agent needs to call this safely 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds value by mapping schema parameter names to their underlying engine fields (capture_every_frame → bCaptureEveryFrame, fov_angle → FOVAngle, texture_target → TextureTarget). The partial-failure note also clarifies what happens when one of the six values is rejected.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Sets') plus the exact target component (USceneCaptureComponent2D on a SceneCapture2D actor) and enumerates the five fields being written. This clearly separates it from the sibling get_scene_capture_2d_properties and spawn_scene_capture_2d without needing either 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?

Usage context is implied — 'in the editor world, without capturing or saving' tells the agent when this is appropriate, and the set_/get_ naming pair implicitly routes reads elsewhere. But there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_scene_capture_2d_properties or how it relates to spawn_scene_capture_2d, so guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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