remap_texture_channels

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool alters file references (a mutation), but does not mention permissions, reversibility, side effects on existing references, or error behavior. It is not contradictory, but it is incomplete for a file-modifying operation.

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 efficiently structured with a purpose sentence, an example of the channel_map format, and an Args section. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes only necessary details, though the example could be slightly trimmed without loss.

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?

Given the complexity of editing a .tres file, the description covers the essential inputs and their semantics, but it does not address potential failure cases (e.g., missing file, invalid property names) or what the tool returns beyond an implicit success. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description alone is not fully self-contained.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters fully. It does: material_path is described as an absolute path, and channel_map is explained as a dict mapping property names to res:// paths, with a concrete example. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema and enables correct invocation.

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 states a specific action: linking hand-painted textures into material property slots by altering ext_resource references in a .tres file. It clearly identifies the resource type and the mechanism, distinguishing it from sibling tools like load_sprite or batch_shader_uniforms without needing explicit contrast.

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 implies a use case (linking hand-painted textures) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. It gives context but lacks direct routing guidance, which is a minor gap for an agent deciding between tools.

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