remap_material_ids

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

Annotations only declare the mechanical profile (destructive, not read-only, not idempotent); the description goes well beyond, disclosing that gaps cost a wasted baked material slot, that a no-op leaves the mesh unchanged and still succeeds with applied=false/triangles_remapped=0/note, that missing material entries count as no material, and that the call fails when applied is false. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral detail with no contradiction of the annotations.

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 purpose, then modes, then the consequence of gaps, then edge-case outcomes, then the return shape – a sensible order that earns each sentence. It is dense and slightly run-on in places, but proportionate to a two-mode tool with subtle edge cases.

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, yet the description inlines the full return shape including optional fields, and covers both modes' success and failure semantics. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds mode-conditional meaning: how from/to interact, that compact pairs with the materials list, that the list is positional and may be shorter than the IDs in use (missing entries = no material), and that from==to is a no-op. That materially exceeds the schema's per-field text.

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 ("Renumber MaterialIDs on a DynamicMeshActor's live dynamic mesh") and immediately names the two distinct operating modes, which cleanly separates it from siblings like set_mesh_material_id, set_mesh_material_id_in_region, and set_polygroup_material_id. An agent can identify what the tool does and how it differs without opening the schema.

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?

It clearly explains the condition selecting each mode (pass from/to to merge one ID; pass compact=true to close gaps) and names the downstream consumer, copy_dynamic_mesh_to_static_mesh, so the agent understands the workflow. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use or a named sibling alternative, so it lands just under the top.

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