recompile_material_function

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by explaining that loaded materials recompile, dependent function instances get marked dirty but are not saved, and the function itself is then saved, with success contingent on that save. It also pre-empts a likely misreading by noting that 'recompiled' is always true and is not a shader-error report.

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 action and keeps to two dense but purposeful sentences, with the returns summary clearly separated. Slightly clause-heavy, but each clause carries real information.

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 supplies both the return shape and the side-effect/save semantics an agent needs. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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 parameter and its format are already documented in the schema. The description adds little parameter-level detail beyond restating the accepted asset types, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (recompile) and resource (material function, layer or function instance), and the parenthetical engine call (UpdateMaterialFunction) anchors it. An agent can distinguish it from material-level siblings like compile_material at a glance.

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 scope (function/layer/instance) implies when this applies rather than compile_material, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not statement or named alternative is given. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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