set_material_instance_parent

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses that orphaned overrides silently stop applying and that static switch defaults come from the new parent. That silent-failure warning is exactly the kind of consequence detail annotations cannot convey.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the return shape is separated cleanly. The 'vendor master' analogy is slightly colorful but earns its place by clarifying intent; overall tight with no filler.

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 destructive, non-idempotent-adjacent mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape inline plus the critical post-call verification step. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and safely verify this operation 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description frames the concept of the new parent but adds no path syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is 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 (re-parent a material instance onto a different base material) and immediately grounds it in a concrete use case (swap from vendor master to your own). An agent can distinguish this from sibling tools like reparent_blueprint or set_material_function_instance_parent without opening a 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?

Clearly frames the scenario where this is the right tool (swap parent without recreating/re-pointing referencers) and names a required follow-up (re-read with get_material_all_parameters). Lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or a named alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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