set_texture

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

Annotations already flag readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, but the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: changes are browser-only, NOT saved to source, lost on reload, recorded in pending_changes (→ code edits), and undoable via revert_changes. That is exactly the kind of ephemerality and side-effect context an agent needs and cannot get from annotations alone.

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 critical LIVE PREVIEW constraint front-loaded before the editable-property list. Every clause carries information; no 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?

For a 12-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral risks (ephemerality, recording, undo) and points to related tools by name. It stops short of explaining return/pending-change shape or partial-update semantics, which would complete the picture.

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 high (92%), so the schema already documents wrap/filter offsets and enum-like numeric codes. The description lists property names but adds no syntax or value meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 and resource ('Change texture sampling and transform') and enumerates the exact property groups affected (wrap, filter, anisotropy, repeat, offset, rotation, colorSpace). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling mutation tools like set_material_property and set_uniform, which target different resources.

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 LIVE PREVIEW nature and the persistence/undo path, which implies it's for ephemeral experimentation, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool over a sibling like set_material_property or a persistent workflow. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.

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