set_material_function_instance_parent

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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that the change happens in one undoable transaction, that it is saved, and that success is contingent on the save succeeding. It also documents the read-back semantics including the '(none)' placeholder for an empty parent. Annotations already cover the safety profile (destructive, idempotent), so this additional transaction/save context is genuine added value.

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-loaded with the action, followed by transaction/save semantics and a return shape. Tight and mostly waste-free, though the explicit 'Returns:' line partially restates the earlier mention of old/new parent.

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?

No output schema exists, so describing the returned fields is appropriate and necessary. For a two-parameter mutation whose safety profile is already covered by annotations, the description supplies the right level of detail; only explicit permission/auth requirements are absent.

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 are already documented; baseline is 3. The description's only marginal addition is clarifying that the parent argument may itself be a material function or a function instance, which slightly broadens the schema's 'UMaterialFunctionInterface' phrasing.

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?

Specific verb ('re-parent') plus resource ('a UMaterialFunctionInstance asset') and the target type ('another material function or function instance'). It clearly distinguishes itself from neighbors like set_material_instance_parent (material instances) and reparent_blueprint.

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 operation and its target are clear, so usage is implied, but the description never states when to prefer this over the related siblings (set_material_instance_parent, create_material_function_instance) nor any prerequisites. Adequate but no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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