create_texture_2d_array

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, and the description adds meaningful mechanism context: the exact UpdateSourceFromSourceTextures(true) build step, that the asset is saved to disk, and that source textures require 'a valid editor source'. It stops short of stating the destructive consequence (overwriting an existing asset of the same name), which is why it isn't a 5.

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?

The lead sentence front-loads purpose and scope, and the mode logic is explained in a compact block. There is some redundancy, since the source_texture_paths paragraph largely restates what the schema and the first sentence already convey, but overall it is well-organized.

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 usefully enumerates the return shape (texture_array_name, asset_path, width, height, num_slices, format, created, saved, save_error). Combined with the annotations covering safety and the detailed mode behavior, an agent has nearly everything needed, though overwrite/name-collision behavior is unaddressed.

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 schema documents clamping and defaults for size/slice_count. The description still adds value by stating the extra semantic constraint that each source_texture_paths entry 'must have a valid editor source', which the schema does not express.

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 ('Creates a persisted UTexture2DArray from slices') and immediately distinguishes itself from sibling import/create tools with '(no external file import)'. An agent can tell it apart from import_texture_file and create_texture_2d_from_data without opening any 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?

The description clearly explains the two internal modes (use source_texture_paths vs. omit it and generate solid-color slices), which is real usage guidance for parameter choice. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over alternatives like import_texture_file or create_texture_2d_from_data, so sibling routing is left to inference.

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