set_morph_target_generated_by_engine

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

Despite annotations (idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds substantial behavior: the flag is set-only and never cleared, names not present on the mesh are silently ignored, empty/missing list flags all morphs, PreEditChange/PostEditChange is triggered and rebuilds the mesh when a flag changes, and a failed save is an error. This is genuinely beyond what the annotations 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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then dense with additive behavioral facts; no sentence is padding. It is on the longer side for a two-parameter tool, which keeps it from a 5, but every clause carries information the agent needs.

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, but the description inlines the return shape (modified, flagged, note, etc.) and explains what each field reports. Combined with the annotations and the behavioral detail, an agent has everything needed to call the tool correctly.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: the missing-list case (schema only mentions empty), the silent-ignore behavior for unknown names, and where names originate. It enriches the two-parameter contract rather than repeating it.

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 (flag) applied to a specific resource (morph targets of a skeletal mesh asset) with explicit scope (on every LOD). The semantic distinction — engine-generated vs imported-from-source — is exactly the decision the agent needs, and it is clearly separable from sibling morph-target tools.

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?

Gives clear context for the flag's meaning and routes the agent to the sibling that supplies input names ('Names come from get_skeletal_mesh_morph_targets'). It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name a direct alternative, so it stops just 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.