ue_set_project_setting

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool modifies config files and that some changes require restart, but does not specify whether values are appended/overwritten, error handling, or persistence behavior (e.g., if the file is created if missing). This leaves gaps.

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 well-structured, using a clear 'Args' list with examples. It avoids redundancy and is easy to scan. Minor improvement could be more compact formatting, but it's already efficient.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the parameters and adds a restart note. However, it lacks details on return values, side effects (e.g., auto-save), or error scenarios, which would make it more complete for an AI agent.

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 description compensates for 0% schema coverage by listing each parameter with real-world examples (e.g., '/Script/EngineSettings.GameMapsSettings') and specifying allowed values for 'config' ('Game' | 'Engine' | 'Input'). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's basic types.

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 writes a setting to project config files, with a specific verb (scrive/un'impostazione) and resource (file Config/Default<config>.ini). It provides detailed parameter examples, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like ue_set_actor_property, which operate on different targets.

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 includes a note about requiring editor restart for some settings, giving a practical usage hint. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for runtime vs. persistent settings) or what prerequisites exist, limiting guidance.

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