editor_set_static_model

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose two meaningful traits: the change goes through Undo/Redo history (reversible), and modelId is validated for compatibility before the scene is mutated. It does not cover failure behavior (what happens if validation fails) or whether the undo entry requires a transaction boundary.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the action and its mechanics front-loaded and the validation caveat following immediately.

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 tool is a simple two-parameter mutation with an output schema and full parameter documentation, so the description covers nearly everything needed. The remaining gap is failure/error behavior, which matters for a scene-mutating tool with no annotations.

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 100%, so baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by stating that modelId must resolve to a compatible model before use and that the actor must already be loaded, adding validation semantics not present in the schema text.

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 (assigns), a specific resource (FlaxEngine.Model asset → StaticModel actor), and the mechanism (Undo/Redo history). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as editor_set_static_model_material or editor_set_member.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'existing' asset and 'loaded' actor hint at prerequisites, and the schema points to editor_scene_graph and content_search as GUID sources. However, the description never names alternatives or states when not to use this tool (e.g., versus editor_set_member or the material setter).

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