set_physical_surface

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses one important trait: the tool will create the Physical Material if it does not exist. It does not state whether existing surface types are overwritten, what permissions are required, or other side effects—gaps for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a brief rationale and structured Args. Every sentence earns its place; no wasted words. The only minor inefficiency is the slightly verbose sound explanation for a simple setter.

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 simple 2-parameter setter with an output schema already present, the description covers purpose, parameter meanings, and the auto-creation behavior. It lacks explicit notes about overwriting existing surface types or permission requirements, but otherwise is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 define parameters. It does so well, providing meaning and format examples for both: material_path as an asset path (e.g., '/Game/Materials/PM_Grass') and surface_type as a name (e.g., 'Grass', 'Metal', 'Wood'). It adds substantial value 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Set the surface type on a Physical Material', and adds the useful condition '(creates it if needed)'. It clearly distinguishes the tool from most siblings by domain, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 usage by explaining that surface types drive material-dependent sounds, giving context for when to call it. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide prerequisites or exclusions.

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