set_actor_property

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Set' implies mutation, but it doesn't state whether the property must already exist, whether setting is reversible, what valid property names look like, or what error conditions arise. A mutation tool with zero annotation coverage needs far more context than this.

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 short, but it wastes its only substantive line on a garbage example that is actively misleading. A placeholder example with identical repeated values teaches nothing and should have been replaced with a real, illustrative call or a note about valid property semantics.

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 three required parameters, no enums, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. Even though an output schema exists, the agent has no way to know what a valid property is, what value formats are accepted, or how this differs from the many related setter tools among the ~400 siblings.

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 0% — all three string parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description's only parameter guidance is a nonsensical example where name, property_name, and property_value are all literally 'ExampleName'. This fails to clarify what property_value should contain or what constitutes a valid property_name, providing no compensation for the schema gap.

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?

'Set a specific property on an actor instance' states a clear verb and resource. The name is self-descriptive and easily distinguishes it from sibling mutators like set_actor_transform, set_component_property, and set_blueprint_property, though the description itself doesn't articulate that differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of checking properties with get_actor_properties first, no distinction from set_component_property, and no statement of prerequisites. The KB reference points to a file anchor but provides zero actual content in the description.

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