ue_set_property

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 discloses that read-only properties and properties with BlueprintSetters cannot be written, but it does not mention failure behavior, permissions, or side effects. The mutation nature is implied but not elaborated.

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 sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action, listing constraints, and directing to alternatives. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the primary usage and constraints, but lacks details on return values or error conditions. With no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left without information about success/failure signals or what happens if the property is invalid. The optional 'value' parameter in the schema also introduces ambiguity that the description does not resolve.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context that property types can be seen via ue_describe_object, which indirectly helps interpret the 'value' parameter, but it does not specify types or formats directly. The value parameter's optional nature in the schema is not clarified.

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 starts with 'Write a property value on a UObject', which clearly states the action and target. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the scope (public properties) and excluding properties with BlueprintSetters, which aligns with the alternative ue_call_function.

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 explicitly says 'For properties with setters, use ue_call_function with the setter function instead', providing a direct alternative. It also advises using ue_describe_object to inspect property types, guiding the agent on prerequisites. This is strong usage guidance.

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