maya_unreal_cleanup_materials

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It details key behaviors: deleting only shading groups with no members, skipping referenced materials during rename, and supporting dry_run mode to report actions without making changes. It also warns about the need for human judgment in material selection, though it could further emphasize the destructive nature of delete_unused.

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-structured with a concise summary, a prominent warning, and a clean Args section. Every sentence adds value: the warning clarifies non-merge behavior, and the parameter list is efficient and readable. No fluff or repetition.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage boundaries, parameter semantics, and safety behavior. The dry_run explanation implies an output report, which is sufficient for general use. The caution about human decision-making provides important context for AI agents.

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%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides clear explanations for all four parameters: prefix, rename, delete_unused, and dry_run, including the default behavior and special cases (e.g., referenced materials are skipped). This is comprehensive and adds meaning beyond the bare schema.

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's purpose: performing safe material cleanup by deleting unused shading groups and prefix renaming. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly stating it does not merge materials and emphasizes safety, which separates it from more aggressive cleanup or audit 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 provides context on when to use the tool: for safe cleanup only, and explicitly advises against using it when slot reduction requires merging materials, directing the user to show audit results instead. It does not name specific alternative sibling tools but gives clear usage boundaries.

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