set_state_selection_behavior

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the return payload (including a `saved` flag), which hints that the asset is written to disk. It does not explain what is overwritten, whether compilation is required, or why a setting is flagged destructive.

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 short sentences, action stated first, return shape given second. Nothing is redundant and nothing is padded.

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?

With no output schema, quoting the return fields is a real contribution, and annotations carry the safety profile. Still missing for a destructive state-tree mutation: behavior when the state or tree path is invalid, and whether a compile/save step follows. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 every parameter is already documented, including the selection_behavior value list. The description only echoes the enum type name and adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 and a precisely scoped resource: it sets a state's selection behavior (EStateTreeStateSelectionBehavior) on a UStateTree. That is far more specific than the many sibling setters (set_state_type, set_state_completion_type), though it never explicitly says how it differs from them.

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 guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., does the state need to exist first, does the tree need compiling), and no reference to alternatives among the numerous state-tree mutators. The agent must infer context entirely from the name and schema.

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