set_blueprint_property

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds relevant context about CDO defaults and dot paths for components, but it does not mention persistence, compile requirements, or whether this is a destructive operation. For a mutation tool, this is a gap but not a contradiction.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. Every word serves a purpose: the first sentence defines what the tool does, and the second provides a crucial usage hint. No redundant or vague wording.

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, combined with the rich schema (100% parameter coverage), is adequate for a simple setter. However, without annotations or an output schema, the description does not address potential side effects (e.g., whether the property change requires asset save or blueprint recompilation) or error handling. It is minimally complete but leaves some behavioral gaps.

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 schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds valuable semantic nuance beyond the schema by explaining the 'ComponentName.PropertyName' dot path format for property_name, which clarifies how to address component sub-properties. This extra meaning justifies above baseline.

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 'Set' with a precise resource: 'default property value on a Blueprint's CDO'. It clearly distinguishes from instance-level setters like set_actor_property by specifying CDO (Class Default Object). The dot-path example for component properties further clarifies the tool's specific scope.

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 provides clear context that this tool operates on Blueprint defaults, implying it should be used instead of instance-level setters. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the mention of CDO and the dot-path convention offers situational guidance for component properties.

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