net_set_actor_replicates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing side effects. The phrase 'safe Actor replication defaults' is vague and does not explain that this modifies a Blueprint asset, can save or compile it, or what specific replication flags and values are changed. Given that this is a mutation tool, the lack of behavioral disclosure is a meaningful gap.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The KB pointer and example are useful and non-redundant. It earns its length, though it sacrifices some needed detail for brevity.

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 tool with seven parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, this definition is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details, parameter semantics, and usage differentiation. The output schema exists but is not shown, and the description does not cover the main operational concerns an agent would need before invoking the tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the seven parameters. Only blueprint_name is illustrated via the example path. The meanings of replicates, replicate_movement, net_update_frequency, min_net_update_frequency, save, and compile are left entirely to schema titles and defaults, with no explanation of sentinel values like -1.

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 states a clear action ('Configure safe Actor replication defaults') and a specific resource ('Actor-derived Blueprint'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like net_set_component_replicates by focusing on Actor-level replication defaults. However, it does not enumerate which default settings are changed, leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as net_set_component_replicates, net_configure_replicated_property, or net_set_replication_condition. The KB reference and example hint at usage context, but there is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-routing information.

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