ue_set_actor_property

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses JSON formats for vectors, colors, and auto-loading of asset paths. It explains the 'component' parameter's purpose. However, it does not mention potential side effects, required permissions, or whether changes are persistent. Overall, it adds significant context beyond the schema.

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 clear purpose statement, elaboration, and an Args section. It is slightly verbose but remains focused. Every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise, but it is effective.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description covers parameter details, behavior, and examples. It lacks information about return values or error handling, which would be helpful. However, it is sufficiently complete for a property-setting tool.

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 compensate. It explains all three parameters: 'label' (actor label), 'properties' (map with JSON formats), and 'component' (optional, name or class). Examples are provided for vector and color formats. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's type-only 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's purpose: setting properties on an actor or its component. It distinguishes itself from 'Class Defaults' (handled by a sibling tool) and provides concrete examples (mesh, light intensity, trigger radius). The verb 'imposta' (set) and resource 'attore' (actor) are specific, and the description differentiates from sibling tools like ue_set_actor_transform.

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 explains the scope ('everything except Class Defaults'), which implies when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It does not explicitly list exclusions or mention specific sibling tools, but the context is clear. A score of 4 reflects good implied guidance without explicit when-not-to-use.

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