editor_set_static_model_material

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

With no annotations, the description still discloses that the operation is tracked through Undo/Redo history and that the bridge validates the actor, slot, and material before mutating the scene. That covers the main mutation safety and reversibility traits, though it omits failure behavior, permissions, and other side effects.

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, front-loaded with purpose and followed by the key behavioral caveat. There is no filler 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?

An output schema exists and all parameters are fully described in the schema, so the description need not explain return values or parameter formats. It covers the mutation, Undo/Redo, and validation well, though it lacks explicit usage guidance and failure-mode details.

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 100%, so actorId, slotIndex, and materialId are already fully documented in the schema. The description mentions actor, slot, and material in prose but adds no parameter syntax or format beyond what the schema provides.

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') and resource ('existing FlaxEngine.MaterialBase asset to one slot of a loaded StaticModel'), so the purpose is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as editor_set_static_model, which keeps it from a 5.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The agent can infer that this tool is for assigning a material to a loaded StaticModel slot, but the description does not route it against alternatives.

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