ue_set_component_replication

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behavioral details: component replication is not automatic, the tool handles the '_GEN_VARIABLE' suffix automatically, and the 'replicates' parameter activates replication. It does not cover permissions or side effects like blueprint compilation, but it provides meaningful insight into how the tool behaves.

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 concise and well-organized: a one-sentence purpose, a brief conceptual note, and a clear Args list. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage context, and all parameters. It lacks details on potential side effects (e.g., whether the blueprint needs saving or compilation), but for a targeted configuration tool it is quite complete.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section explains all three parameters: blueprint_path, component_name (including the special suffix handling), and replicates. This compensates well for the schema gap, though blueprint_path format is not fully specified (e.g., relative to /Game).

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Attiva la replication di un singolo componente di un Blueprint.' It uses a specific verb (attiva) and resource (componente di Blueprint), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool ue_set_replication by emphasizing 'singolo componente' and explaining the actor-vs-component replication nuance.

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 description provides strong contextual guidance: 'Un attore replicato non replica automaticamente i suoi componenti' implies when this tool is needed (when component replication is required after actor replication). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context effectively communicates the use case.

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