protect_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses some behavioral context: missing protected slots block later imports, and generated property/hierarchy changes are outside the preservation contract. However, it does not state permissions, reversibility, what set/clear actually alters, or the effect of the default inspect mode, leaving significant gaps for a mutation-capable tool.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then dense parameter notes. Every clause contributes: path constraints, units, and preservation scope. Minor density and crypticness, but no filler.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose and key parameter formats but omits the asset_id meaning, mode semantics, and what set/clear operations do to existing data. It is adequate but incomplete for safe 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 0%, so the description must define the parameters. It describes bindings ({slot, material_path}) with allowed path roots, sockets ({name, position, rotation}) with coordinate units, and implies mode values inspect/set/clear from the opening sentence. The required asset_id remains unexplained, but the description adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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?

States a specific set of capabilities: inspect/set/clear custom material overrides and persistent root attachment points. It does not distinguish the tool from siblings like inspect_asset or restore_asset, so an agent cannot confidently route among them, but the verb and resource are clear.

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?

No explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternatives. The note that missing protected slots block later imports implies some context, but the agent is left to infer when to call protect_asset versus inspect_asset or restore_asset.

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