reimport_skeletal_mesh

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

With no annotations to lean on, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It fails to mention that reimporting will overwrite the existing mesh data, that the source file must be resolvable, or what happens if the source is missing or the asset is not a skeletal mesh. The description is largely a restatement of the tool name.

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?

A single, clear sentence that front-loads the action and object. No wasted words, and the parenthetical is unnecessary. Perfectly concise for the minimal information it provides.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. The agent can infer the primary use case. However, it doesn't clarify that reimport replaces existing mesh data (potential side effect), whether the source path is stored in the asset, or what the return value indicates. Could be improved with a note like 'Overwrites the existing asset's data from its source file'.

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%, with the only param 'mesh_path' documented as 'Skeletal mesh asset path'. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. There is no format, example, or path syntax guidance added.

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 uses a specific verb ('reimport') with a clear resource ('skeletal mesh') and the source of truth ('its source file'). It clearly distinguishes the intent from sibling 'import_asset' by using 're-' to imply updating an existing asset, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'import_asset' or when a reimport is preferred over a fresh import. There are no implied prerequisites, no mention of whether the asset must already exist or be selected, and no exclusions.

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