get_material_instance_static_switch

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds the 'Editor-only' constraint plus an explicit return shape including 'overridden'. It does not mention error behavior when the parameter is absent, but the added context is meaningful.

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?

Two compact segments – purpose/scope front-loaded, then the return shape – with zero filler. Every clause (static bool, source function, editor-only, return fields) 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?

For a simple idempotent read whose safety semantics are already in annotations and whose params are fully schema-documented, the description supplies the missing pieces: editor-only scoping and the return field list. Only the absence-of-parameter / error case is left 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters including association, layer_index, and path. The description adds nothing about parameter syntax or defaults beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 precise verb + resource: reading a single static-switch (static bool) parameter value from a Material Instance Constant, and even names the underlying library call. The singular 'a static-switch parameter value' implicitly distinguishes it from list-style siblings such as get_material_static_switch_parameters.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives named (e.g. set_material_instance_static_switch for writing). The 'Editor-only' note is the only usage constraint, leaving selection between this and the sibling getters to inference.

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