ue_set_project_setting

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it writes to config files and notes that some settings require editor restart. This provides transparency about side effects. It does not specify whether it overwrites or appends, but that is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 and includes the essential information: purpose and parameter examples. It could benefit from a more structured format (e.g., bulleted list) but is not overly verbose. Every sentence earns its place.

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 4 parameters, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior. It explains input parameters and notes the potential need for editor restart. For a simple write-to-file tool, this is sufficient.

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 explain parameters. It provides concrete examples for section ('/Script/EngineSettings.GameMapsSettings'), key ('GlobalDefaultGameMode'), value (full blueprint path), and config (enum: Game, Engine, Input). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Scrive un'impostazione nei file Config/Default<config>.ini del progetto' (writes a setting to project config files). It clearly identifies the verb (write/set), resource (project config ini files), and distinguishes from sibling tools like ue_set_class_defaults (which sets Blueprint class defaults) and ue_set_replication (replication settings).

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 lists parameters with examples but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. However, the purpose is clear enough to infer usage: use when setting project-level ini settings. Future improvements could add guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for runtime changes).

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