validate_import_result

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool verifies (existence, class match, dependency/reference metadata, dirty state), the require_saved warning behavior, and the full set of returned fields. It doesn't explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or detail error/failure modes, but the validation semantics are clear.

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?

The description is well-organized with labeled sections: purpose, usage trigger, Args, Returns, KB reference, and Example. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important info is front-loaded in the first two lines. No redundant 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?

Covers purpose, when to use, all parameters, return fields, a KB pointer, and an example call. Since an output schema exists, detailed return-value documentation is not needed here. The only minor gap is no discussion of failure handling or when not to use, but the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke 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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the structured schema provides no explanations. The description fully compensates with an Args block that explains each parameter, including a concrete path example ('/Game/Meshes/SM_Table') and a class example ('StaticMesh'). This goes well beyond the bare property names and types.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Validate' and the resource 'imported asset', then concretely defines expectations as existence, expected class, dependency/reference metadata, and non-dirty state. It explicitly names the import tools it pairs with (import_texture, import_static_mesh, import_skeletal_mesh, generative imports), distinguishing it from the many generic validate/check sibling 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?

The description gives an explicit trigger: 'Use immediately after import_texture, import_static_mesh, import_skeletal_mesh, or generative imports.' This is clear and actionable context. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, so it falls 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.