ue_set_net_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and largely succeeds. It discloses that only provided parameters are touched, lists default values for several fields, notes that net_cull_distance is stored squared, and explains the effect of net_load_on_client. It does not mention persistence or side effects like requiring a save/recompile, so not a 5.

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 well-structured with a summary, a key caveat, and a clear Args list. Every sentence adds value, and the formatting makes it easy to scan. It is appropriately detailed for nine parameters without unnecessary fluff.

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 tool's complexity (9 params, no parameter descriptions in schema, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how it differs from siblings, parameter semantics, defaults, and edge-case storage behavior. It is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, but the description compensates fully. It explains every parameter's meaning, valid values for dormancy, default values for frequency/priority/cull distance, and special behavior for cull distance and load-on-client. This goes far beyond the schema's bare type definitions.

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 regulates 'how much bandwidth a replicated actor costs' via dormancy, update frequency, priority, and relevancy. It explicitly contrasts with sibling tool ue_set_replication, which decides whether to replicate, making the purpose 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?

It gives explicit usage guidance: only passed parameters are modified, others remain unchanged. It also names the direct alternative (ue_set_replication) and explains the division of responsibility, plus provides a specific recommendation for dormancy='initial' with non-changing actors.

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