add_skeletal_mesh_lod

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

Annotations already declare that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior by stating that the new LOD is a clone of LOD 0 build settings and by listing return fields including 'added' and 'note'. However, it does not explain side effects on existing LODs, whether the asset must be saved, or why the operation is non-idempotent.

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 short sentences and is front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence lists the return shape, which is useful because no output schema exists, though the list is slightly mechanical. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action, clone behavior, and return fields. It still omits relevant context such as whether the skeletal mesh must already exist, whether the asset needs saving afterward, and when to prefer this over related LOD configuration tools.

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 both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; notably, it never mentions the optional screen_size override. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries parameter semantics.

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 and resource: 'Append a new LOD entry to a skeletal mesh.' It further clarifies the operation by noting the new LOD clones LOD 0 build settings. This distinguishes it from siblings like remove_skeletal_mesh_lod and set_skeletal_mesh_lod_settings, though it does not name any alternative explicitly.

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 says what the tool does but offers no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or point to related tools such as set_skeletal_mesh_lod_build_settings or bake_skeletal_mesh_lod. The clone-of-LOD-0 detail only implicitly suggests usage.

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