set_spline_points

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is partly covered, but the description adds real context beyond them: it explains the operation is a clear-and-re-add (ClearSplinePoints + AddSplinePoint) and that inputs are in local space. This lets an agent understand that existing points are discarded and the coordinate space used.

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 front-load the operation and then the implementation/return summary, with no filler. Every clause carries information, though the return object listing is somewhat listy for the space it occupies.

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 3-param destructive mutator with no output schema, the description supplies enough: it names the target component, describes the replacement flow, notes local space, and sketches the return shape. Only the lack of usage routing versus sibling tools keeps it from being fully complete.

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 schema already documents actor_name, points, and closed_loop. The description restates local-space points and maps to optional closed-loop behavior but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Replaces') and resource ('spline points on a named actor's USplineComponent'), which is more precise than the tautological name alone. It is not explicit about how it differs from siblings like get_spline_points or set_river_spline_points, but the resource scoping makes the intent clear.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. The agent must infer that this is the write counterpart to get_spline_points and is distinct from set_river_spline_points. The 'Replaces' verb hints at mutation but no usage context is given.

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