set_skeletal_mesh_section_recompute_tangent

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds value by disclosing the return shape (including a 'saved' flag that implies persistence), which matters because no output schema exists. However it never explains what 'destructive' means here or what a recompute-tangent change triggers downstream.

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?

Two tight sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the return contract following. Nothing is padded, though the return line partially restates the inputs (lod_index, section_index, recompute_tangent) rather than only the new information (saved).

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?

Because there is no output schema, including the return shape is genuinely useful and covers that gap. But for a mutating tool with destructiveHint=true, the description omits prerequisites, the effect of the change on the mesh, and any save/persistence caveats beyond the bare 'saved' flag.

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 all four parameters (lod_index, section_index, recompute_tangent, skeletal_mesh_path) are already documented with defaults in the schema. The description adds no format, range, or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, 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?

The description names a specific verb (set) and a precise resource (the recompute tangent flag on a section of a skeletal mesh LOD), which cleanly separates it from siblings like set_skeletal_mesh_section_cast_shadow and set_skeletal_mesh_section_visible_in_ray_tracing. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, but the scope is unambiguous.

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 states what the tool does but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., whether the asset must be loaded or saved), and no reference to the read-side sibling get_skeletal_mesh_section_info or the other per-section setters. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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