apply_material

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning side effects such as whether it replaces the existing material, persists changes, requires specific permissions, or affects the slot index behavior. This lack of behavioral context leaves the agent without safety or consequence information.

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 concise sentence: 'Apply a material to an actor's mesh component.' It is front-loaded with the action and target, contains zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is minimal and does not explain what applying a material entails in terms of persistence, replacement behavior, or any prerequisites. For a straightforward tool, more context is still needed to fully understand the operation's effects and expectations.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters ('actor_name', 'slot_index', 'material_path'). The description adds no extra parameter information beyond what the schema already offers, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('apply') and resource ('material to an actor's mesh component'), making the tool's purpose clear. It distinguishes itself from generic set_actor_property by naming the specific operation, though it does not explicitly compare itself to sibling tools.

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 usage context is implied: use when you need to apply a material to an actor's mesh component. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives (e.g., set_actor_property). The description does not provide exclusions or alternative scenarios.

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