copy_material_instance_params

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent), and the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: only overrides are copied, inherited values are not carried, and static switches are excluded. It also discloses the return counts. Lacks notes on permissions or partial-failure behavior, but the constraint disclosure is strong.

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 and scope, then adds the exclusion and verification guidance in the same breath. Slightly dense but each clause (overrides-only, static-switch exclusion, verification tools) 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?

No output schema exists, but the description spells out the return shape and counts explicitly, and covers the two important behavioral caveats (overrides only, no static switches). An agent has everything needed to call and verify correctly.

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 source_path and destination_path are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (bulk-copy) and precisely scoped resource (scalar/vector/texture OVERRIDES from one material instance to another), and names the sibling copy_mid_params_from_source-adjacent distinction by clarifying it copies overrides only. An agent can select this over set_material_instance_param 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?

Explicitly states the use case (clone a calibration onto a sibling instance instead of re-setting parameters one by one), gives the exclusion for STATIC SWITCHES with the named alternative set_material_instance_static_switch, and points to get_material_all_parameters and diff_material_instances for verification.

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