create_skeletal_mesh_morph_target

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: annotations only give the safety profile, while the description discloses that the morph is in-memory only and never persisted, is dropped on rebuild/reload unless in imported source data, gets a seed delta per LOD so it counts as valid, and marks the mesh dirty. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs.

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 the in-memory caveat, then layers on the seed-delta, dirty-flag, and idempotency facts, ending with a Returns shape. Every sentence carries distinct information with no padding.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape inline plus persistence, rebuild, idempotency, and side-effect caveats. Nothing material an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: morph_target_name carries idempotency semantics (existing name returns created=false and already_exists=true), and the path must point at a content asset. Useful value on top of 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 (register a new morph target) plus the exact resource and scope (on a skeletal mesh asset, in memory only). It routes clearly away from siblings like set_morph_target_deltas, remove_skeletal_mesh_morph_target, and rename_skeletal_mesh_morph_target, so an agent can distinguish it without opening other schemas.

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 tells the agent to use set_morph_target_deltas to write real deltas, and explains the idempotent case where an existing name returns created=false. It gives clear context for when the tool applies, though it does not spell out every exclusion (e.g. persisted morphs must come from imported source data).

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