ue_project_set_plugins

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions writing to .uproject (a file modification) and the need for editor restart. It lacks details on permissions, idempotency, error conditions, or return values. The provided info is useful but incomplete for full transparency.

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 three short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the main action and then adds important context and a note. Perfectly concise for the information provided.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient for a complete understanding. It does not explain parameters, potential errors, or the exact modifications to the .uproject. The bridge use case and restart note are helpful but not enough.

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%, meaning the description must explain parameters. However, it does not describe 'enable', 'disable', or 'uproject' at all. The description only covers the overall action, leaving parameter semantics completely unaddressed.

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 enables/disables plugins by writing to the .uproject file. It specifies it's useful on existing projects, which gives context. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings since no direct sibling exists for plugin management, but the action is clear and specific.

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 a concrete use case: enabling PythonScriptPlugin and RemoteControl for the bridge. It also advises that the editor needs restarting if already open. It does not give explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context is helpful for decision-making.

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