net_set_property_replicated

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose the side-effectful save and compile behavior and explains enable/disable semantics for replicated/repnotify, plus points to a KB reference. However, it does not describe consequences of changing replication settings, preconditions, or failure modes, so transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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 a one-sentence purpose, followed by a clean per-argument list, a KB pointer, and a concrete example. Every section earns its place without unnecessary prose.

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?

Given the output schema exists, return-value details are not needed here. The description covers all parameters, the save/compile side effects, provides an example, and links to relevant knowledge base material. It is slightly incomplete only in not offering explicit comparison to sibling replication tools.

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 parameter list is essential and it covers all seven parameters with practical meanings, including examples for replication_condition and a worked invocation. It loses a point because it does not clarify interactions between options, such as what happens when replicated is false but repnotify is true.

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 specific action—'Configure an existing Blueprint variable for replication or RepNotify'—with a clear resource and goal. It differentiates at the level of 'Blueprint variable' from actor/component-level siblings, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely named tools like net_configure_replicated_property.

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?

The intended use is implied by 'existing Blueprint variable' and 'replication or RepNotify', which tells an agent this is for variable-level replication configuration. However, the description never names alternatives such as net_set_actor_replicates or net_add_repnotify_variable, nor states when not to use this tool. The routing guidance is therefore implied rather than explicit.

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