set_sky_atmosphere_properties

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

Annotations already declare destructive/idempotent/non-read-only, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them: partial-update semantics ('only the supplied fields change'), that applied_count reflects how many were applied, that the reply reads every property back, and the color array format. It stops short of covering failure modes or permission 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?

Two compact sentences plus a return-shape line, with the core operation front-loaded ahead of the scoping and format details. Every sentence carries distinct information (mutation scope, application count, read-back, color format) with no filler.

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 12-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape and the partial-update contract, and annotations carry the safety profile. It is nearly complete, though it omits what happens when actor_name resolves to nothing or a property is rejected.

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 all 12 parameters (including the FColor/albedo nuances). The description adds the color-array convention '[R,G,B] or [R,G,B,A]' and ties applied_count to the supplied fields, but largely restates what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is 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?

The description gives a specific verb+resource: 'Set the atmosphere properties of a SkyAtmosphere actor's USkyAtmosphereComponent.' An agent can tell this is a mutation tool for sky atmosphere settings, clearly distinct from read siblings like get_sky_atmosphere_properties and spawn_sky_atmosphere. It does not explicitly name those siblings, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 is implied by the partial-update semantics ('Only the supplied fields change'), which tells the agent it need not resend every property. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternatives (e.g. get_sky_atmosphere_properties for reading, spawn_sky_atmosphere for creation) are provided.

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