regenerate_collection_param_id

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds real value beyond that: it specifies that the id is replaced with a random FGuid, that the asset is saved, that the search is scoped to one array, and that a missing name produces an error. This tells the agent exactly what is mutated and when it fails.

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 action is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the scoping/error constraint, then a compact return-value summary. Every sentence carries information, though the two-part structure could be tighter. It is well-sized for a narrow mutation tool.

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?

There is no output schema, so the explicit Returns block (collection_path, param_name, param_type, new_id, regenerated, saved) meaningfully fills that gap. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and a fully documented schema, an agent has nearly everything needed to invoke it 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 schema already documents collection_path, param_name, and param_type including the scalar/vector default. The description reinforces the param_type scoping ('searches only the array param_type selects') but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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 specific verb and resource: assign a new random FGuid Id to one parameter of a Material Parameter Collection asset and save it. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like rename_collection_param, set_collection_param_default, and add_collection_scalar_param, which all touch the same asset but do different things.

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 gives operational context ('searches only the array param_type selects', 'errors when the name is not there'), which helps an agent predict failure conditions. However, it never names when to choose this over alternatives such as rename_collection_param or set_collection_param_default, so 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.