assign_rvt_to_landscape

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds substantial value beyond them: it discloses that the proxies are re-read after the write and that `applied`/`success` are DERIVED (proxies_with_rvt == proxies_total), never asserted. This reveals the write-verify semantics and the false-with-warning outcome of the opt-out.

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-loads the verb, resource, and rationale in the first sentence, then explains the derived-state semantics before listing the return envelope. Dense and purposeful, though the return-field enumeration is somewhat mechanical.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the return envelope fields and explaining the derived appli/success logic. Combined with the annotations covering safety, an agent has everything needed to invoke it and interpret the result.

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 all four parameters (including the detailed propagate_to_proxies note) are already documented in the schema. The description only adds the phrase 'slot-index based', which the schema's slot_index description already covers, so it does not meaningfully extend parameter semantics beyond the 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 verb (add/assign an RVT), an exact resource (the landscape's RuntimeVirtualTextures array), and the mechanism (propagation to every ALandscapeStreamingProxy because proxies render in World Partition). This clearly separates it from siblings like unassign_rvt_from_landscape, create_rvt_asset, and get_rvt_info.

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?

Explains the World Partition context that motivates the propagation and the propagate_to_proxies opt-out with its consequences (proxies stay empty, applied reports false). It gives clear when-to-use context but does not explicitly name an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use this tool condition.

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