set_material_physical_material

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, but the description adds real value beyond them: it discloses that the change is persisted to disk (with saved/save_error signaling) and that clearing nulls the link. This is genuine behavioral context, though permission/auth requirements are not touched.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the idempotency and clear semantics, then the return shape. No filler; each sentence carries distinct information.

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, but the description inlines the full return shape including already_set, saved, save_error, and success. Combined with the clear semantics and idempotency note, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's clear-on-empty note largely restates the physical_material_path schema description, adding no new syntax or format detail. Baseline 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 pair (Link/clear) and exact resource (UPhysicalMaterial on a UMaterial asset), plus the scope of 'persist it to disk'. This cleanly separates it from the sibling getter get_material_physical_material without needing to name it.

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 description explains the clear-mode condition (empty/omitted physical_material_path) and the idempotency behavior, which are useful usage cues. However, it never states when to reach for this tool versus the read counterpart get_material_physical_material (e.g., read-before-write), so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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