set_material_instance_static_switch

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing post-conditions (the static permutation is rebuilt and the change persisted), that reads are verified via the getter because the engine setter wrapper always returns false, and that the call is editor-only. This is exactly the kind of side-effect and reliability context an agent needs for a destructive, mutating operation.

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 and its side effects, followed by a compact Returns block. The parenthetical about the engine setter returning false is slightly verbose but earns its place by explaining why the read-back exists.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the full return shape (all seven fields) and covers side effects, persistence, editor-only scope, and read-back verification. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret the result 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 the schema already documents all five parameters including association and layer_index semantics. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond restating the static-switch nature, 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 precise verb+resource+scope ('Set a static-switch parameter override on a Material Instance Constant'), then adds the two side effects (rebuild static permutation, persist). An agent can distinguish it from nearby siblings like set_material_instance_param or get_material_instance_static_switch without opening either 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?

The 'Editor-only' constraint gives useful context on when the tool is applicable, but there is no explicit routing guidance versus alternatives such as set_material_instance_param_override or set_material_node_param. Usage is only implied by the static-switch specialization.

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