テクスチャ上書き割当

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

The description discloses important behaviors: changes are instance-only (not propagated), immediate reflection, and empty path removes the override. These go beyond the idempotentHint annotation, providing a complete behavioral picture.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the purpose and then explains key details efficiently. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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 tool with 5 parameters and a clear use case, the description covers all aspects: what it does, how it differs from siblings, parameter semantics, and behavioral notes. It is fully self-contained and leaves no major gaps.

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?

Although the schema already describes parameters, the description adds meaningful context: slot defaults, submesh index 0, path empty meaning unassignment, entity vs name alternatives. This enhances understanding beyond the schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool assigns a texture to an entity's MeshRenderer, mirroring Inspector's drag-and-drop. It distinguishes from sibling `set_component` for sprites, making the purpose precise and unambiguous.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (for MeshRenderer textures) and when not (sprite textures → use set_component). It also explains that Material is model-shared, so users should use this override instead of modifying Material directly.

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