interchange_reset_scene_import_asset

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true) by disclosing the CVar gate, the concrete failure mode when it is off ('does nothing and fails (reset false)'), and the semantic limits of success ('reset true means it ran, not what it changed'). This is exactly the non-obvious behavior an agent needs before invoking a destructive reset.

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 action and scope, then preconditions, then the return contract. Every sentence carries information, though the middle sentences are dense and a returns line is packed alongside the failure semantics rather than separated.

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, and the description supplies the return shape itself (asset_path/reset/cvar_enabled/note). Combined with the CVar precondition, failure semantics, and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a real constraint on the single parameter's domain: the path must point at a UInterchangeSceneImportAsset and any other class is refused. That meaning is not present in the schema itself.

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 ('Call the Interchange reset of a UInterchangeSceneImportAsset'), names the implementing library function, and explicitly scopes out other asset classes. It also routes the agent away from a sibling ('Use interchange_reset_level_asset for a level'), so an agent can distinguish it without opening 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?

Gives explicit when-not conditions ('other asset classes are refused'), a named alternative for the adjacent case (level assets), and a hard precondition (the InterchangeReset CVar must be 1). Nothing about tool selection 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.