configure_asset_streaming

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real context beyond them: the precise property mutated, the value-to-state mapping, that the change is written to disk, and that unsupported asset types return success:false rather than erroring opaquely. That is material disclosure for a mutation 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?

Front-loads the core action, then the parameter semantics, then the failure mode in three tight sentences. The appended return-shape line is not redundant because there is no output schema, so it 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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return fields (success, message, error, file sizes, is_streamable) that an agent needs to interpret results. Combined with the mutation semantics, disk-save behavior, and failure case, nothing essential is missing for correct 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description goes further by translating each boolean value into its runtime consequence (clears NeverStream = on-demand streaming; sets it = fully resident), which the schema only expresses as a formula. It adds genuine meaning over 'maps to NeverStream = !enable_streaming'.

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 (sets) and the exact underlying resource (the NeverStream flag, UStreamableRenderAsset::NeverStream) on a well-defined scope (texture or static mesh), and notes it persists to disk. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like get_asset_streaming_config or set_asset_lod_settings without opening the 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?

Explains the effect of both parameter values in operational terms (streams on demand vs stays fully resident) and gives an explicit failure case (assets with no such knob, e.g. Material, fail with success:false). It does not, however, name any alternative tool or state when to prefer this over adjacent streaming/LOD tools, so it stays at 4 rather than 5.

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