project_settings_maps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds the useful behavioral fact that changes persist to Config/DefaultEngine.ini, which is a concrete side effect. However, it does not disclose whether it overwrites existing values, creates the file if missing, or requires a project restart, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single sentence with only 24 words, yet it conveys the action, parameters, and persistence target. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, contains no filler or repetition, and every phrase 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 simple tool with three optional string parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, what it affects, and where it persists changes. It does not describe return values, but none are critical for a settings mutator, and the low complexity means the description is nearly complete.

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 coverage is 67%, with editor_startup_map lacking a schema description. The tool description compensates by naming all three parameters ('game default map, editor startup map, and/or global default game mode'), ensuring each parameter's purpose is clear. It also reinforces the optionality of each parameter, matching the schema's zero required fields.

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 begins with the specific verb 'Set' and clearly identifies the resource: default maps and game mode. It enumerates the exact settings (game default map, editor startup map, global default game mode) and adds the persistence target, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling tools focused on assets, blueprints, or viewport operations.

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 clearly implies this tool is for configuring project-level startup defaults, and the 'and/or' phrasing indicates partial updates are possible. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but given the sibling list, no other tool directly overlaps with setting project-wide maps and game mode, so the context is sufficiently clear.

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