set_actor_physical_material

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it names the engine call (SetPhysMaterialOverride), states it reads the override back, and exposes a 'verified'/'applied' return shape, telling the agent the mutation is confirmed. It does not disclose what state the override replaces or permission requirements, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences front-load the action and mechanism, followed by a compact Returns block. Every element earns its place, and the return contract is included only because there is no output schema.

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 2-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description compensates by spelling out the return object. Annotations cover the safety profile. It falls short of 5 only in omitting prerequisites and failure/error behavior.

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 both parameters (actor_name, physical_material_path) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond restating the physical-material path concept, so the baseline of 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+resource: setting a physical-material override on an actor's primitive (static-mesh) component, and even names the underlying engine call. It is distinct from sibling set_actor_material (render material) and set_material_physical_material (asset-level), though it doesn't name those alternatives explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that the component must be a static-mesh/primitive component, or how this differs from set_actor_material), and no exclusions. The agent must infer selection context entirely from the description's verb.

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