send_to_unreal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the TCP prerequisite and the landing location of the asset (content browser at dest_path, default /Game/Imported). However, it never says what `replace=true` does to an existing asset, whether a failed partial import can leave the editor in a dirty state, or how the destination folder is created — meaningful gaps for a mutating import.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the action and followed by the environment precondition and the outcome location. No filler, no restatement of the tool name. The terseness is appropriate for a pipe-style import tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the environment/port context is well covered. But for a 4-parameter mutating tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions, omitting the semantics of `name` and `replace` leaves the definition short of what an agent needs to call it safely.

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 compensate and it only partly does: dest_path is explained with its default, and obj_path is implied by 'rendered OBJ'. The `name` and `replace` parameters are completely unaddressed anywhere, leaving half the surface undocumented — a real risk for `replace`, which appears to control overwrite behavior.

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 verb (import), resource (a rendered OBJ), and target (a running Unreal Engine editor) plus the transport (TCP bridge). This is unmistakably different from the sibling names that surround it (export_mesh_tool exports, preview_obj previews, engine_status reports), so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition — Unreal must be running with the MCP plugin listening on 127.0.0.1:55557 — which effectively tells the agent when this call can succeed. It does not name alternatives or say what to do when the bridge is down (e.g., check engine_status first), so it falls short of a full when/when-not treatment.

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