add_material_function_output

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write/non-destructive nature is covered. The description adds value by spelling out the return shape, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as what happens on duplicate output_name, whether the node auto-connects or whether the function must be recompiled afterward.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, and since there is no output schema the explicit 'Returns:' block earns its place. The formatting is slightly awkward (the example path is oddly embedded near the Returns line), but nothing is padded.

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 two-param mutation tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies both the missing return shape and a path example. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, though it omits preconditions and duplicate-name behavior.

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 100%, so both parameters (function_path, output_name) are already documented in the schema. The description's example path reinforces the expected function_path format but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Add) and resource (UMaterialExpressionFunctionOutput node) and even names the exact UE class, which clearly separates it from siblings like add_material_function_input or delete_material_function_output. It stops short of explicitly contrasting those alternatives, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 gives an example path but no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. must the function asset already exist?), and no when-not guidance or named alternatives. An agent must infer context entirely.

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