unreal_set_asset_properties

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose important behaviors: the tool auto-loads a /Game/... string as an object reference and it saves the asset after setting properties. It also states a meaningful limitation (no struct/array support). It does not mention dryRun's effect or return behavior, which keeps it from 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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler. The main behavior and value types are front-loaded, followed immediately by the critical exclusion and alternative. 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core operation, save side effect, value coercion, and unsupported types. However, it omits dryRun semantics entirely—especially since dryRun defaults to true, which could crucially affect whether the asset is actually saved. That is a real gap for correct invocation.

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 only 17%, so the description needs to compensate, and it does for the central 'properties' parameter by clarifying allowed scalar types and the /Game/ string-to-object-reference coercion. It also explains why struct/array values are invalid. It doesn't explain dryRun, but the most complex parameter is well covered.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: setting simple-valued properties on an asset or a Blueprint's class defaults and then saving. It also distinguishes itself by explicitly calling out the unsupported struct/array case and naming unreal_run_python_script as the alternative, so an agent can disambiguate it from nearby asset/actor tools.

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 states when to use the tool: for simple-valued number/bool/string properties on assets/class defaults. It also gives a clear when-not and alternate: struct/array properties are NOT supported, so use unreal_run_python_script instead. This is explicit routing guidance with named alternatives.

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