create_rvt_asset

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail: tile count/size are 'clamped silently' and 'the save result is not checked'. These are non-obvious traits an agent should know. It stops short of a 5 because overwrite/collision behavior on an existing asset name is left unstated.

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 create action and efficient overall. The one flaw is redundancy: return fields are listed twice ('Returns asset_path, tile_count, tile_size and size in texels' and the 'Returns: {...}' line), which wastes a sentence even though an output schema is absent.

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 correctly covers return values, and it supplies the downstream sibling chain, so an agent has enough to invoke and follow up. The only missing piece is behavior when the target asset name already exists.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters with defaults, clamping ranges and enum values. The description restates material type, tile count and tile size but adds no meaning beyond the schema. This is the baseline 3 for a fully documented 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 and resource ('Create a URuntimeVirtualTexture asset') and the key inputs (directory_path/asset_name, material type, tile count, tile size). The naming convention and scope make it clearly distinguishable from siblings like remove_rvt_asset or get_rvt_info 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 gives the downstream workflow: 'Then use create_rvt_volume and assign_rvt_to_landscape.' This tells the agent the ordering context within the RVT chain. However, it does not state prerequisites or what happens if the asset already exists, so it falls just short of full when/when-not guidance.

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