set_streaming_level_loaded

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 value by enumerating the returned fields (including an 'applied' flag signaling success), but it never warns that unloading a level may be destructive or that streaming is asynchronous.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose followed by a return-shape listing. The Returns enumeration is somewhat long but justified given the absence of an output schema; there is little wasted text.

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?

Because no output schema exists, the explicit return-field listing compensates well on the output side. However, for a destructive streaming-state mutation, the definition omits key context such as async load timing, permissions, and how it relates to the sibling visibility setter, leaving notable 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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantics about level_package_path format or the meaning of the loaded flag, so the 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?

States a specific verb ('Sets') and resource ('whether a streaming sub-level should be loaded'), reinforced by the underlying API name ULevelStreaming::SetShouldBeLoaded. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling set_streaming_level_visible, but the toggle-load concept is unambiguous.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set_streaming_level_visible for visibility-only changes), no prerequisites, and no note about async streaming behavior. Usage must be inferred from the name alone.

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