ue_assign_material

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose side effects. It states the tool assigns a material (a mutation), but does not mention whether it overwrites existing materials, requires specific permissions, or what happens on errors (e.g., missing material path).

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 concise with a one-line purpose and line-separated arguments. The mixed language (Italian intro, English args) is a minor drawback but overall well-structured.

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?

The description covers parameter meanings but lacks details on return values (likely none), error handling, or behavior when inputs are invalid. Given 4 parameters and no annotations, it is somewhat incomplete for a mutation 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by explaining each parameter: label (actor's Outliner label), material_path (example given), slot (default 0), component (default first MeshComponent). This clarifies usage beyond bare schema 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 clearly states the tool assigns a material to a placed actor ("Assegna un materiale a un attore piazzato"). It is distinct from sibling tools like ue_spawn_actor or ue_create_material, though the use of Italian may reduce clarity for non-Italian speakers.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ue_create_material or ue_set_actor_property). There is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate or not.

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