reimport_asset

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the underlying mechanism (FReimportManager, flagged legacy), the precondition that source import data must exist, and the fact that execution is fully automated with no dialogs. It still does not say what specifically gets overwritten or what happens when can_reimport is false.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action and preconditions front-loaded, and the 'no dialogs' point placed where it matters. Minor waste: the return payload is stated twice, once in prose ('Returns can_reimport, reimported, and the recorded source_files') and again as a typed object.

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 inline return shape (asset_path, can_reimport, reimported, source_files) usefully fills that gap, and preconditions plus automation behavior round out what an agent needs. The only gap is the absence of failure-state or side-effect detail for a tool annotated destructive.

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% and the single required parameter already documents its format with an example object path ('/Game/Imported/MyTex.MyTex'). The description adds nothing about asset_path semantics beyond what the schema provides, 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 and resource ('Reimport an asset from its recorded source file via FReimportManager') and adds the precondition that the asset must carry UAssetImportData, with texture/sound examples. It hints at differentiation by labeling the manager 'legacy', but never names the obvious sibling alternative (interchange_reimport_asset or reimport_anim_sequence), so an agent must still infer the routing.

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 an applicability condition ('Works on any asset that carries UAssetImportData') and notes it runs without dialogs, which implies when it is safe to call. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no comparison against import_asset, reload_asset_package, or interchange_reimport_asset, all of which occupy adjacent territory.

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