set_smart_object_slot_enabled

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, idempotent, destructive, but the description adds real behavior beyond them: enabled defaults to true when omitted, an invalid slot_index is an error, a failed save returns an error while keeping the change in memory, and the edit is a single undoable editor transaction. The in-memory-on-save-failure and undo semantics are valuable disclosures.

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 core action, followed by default/error/undo behavior, then sibling routing, then the return shape. Dense but every sentence earns its place 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 save-performed mutation tool this is complete: it covers default semantics, error and partial-failure behavior, undo scope, sibling routing, and even an explicit return shape despite no output schema. Nothing needed 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: the default value of enabled when omitted and the error behavior for an invalid slot_index. It does not, however, describe format expectations for definition_path, leaving a small gap.

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 (Set) plus the exact resource and field (the authored enabled flag bEnabled of a slot at slot_index in a USmartObjectDefinition asset), and clarifies it is the initial state new smart objects start with. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like set_smart_object_slot_transform or remove_smart_object_slot without opening any 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?

Explicitly names alternatives with their selecting conditions: remove_smart_object_slot to delete the slot instead, and get_smart_object_slots_detail to read slots back. This is a clear when-to-use / when-not-to-use routing.

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