update_material_paths

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds genuine value by naming what is mutated (relationship targets plus asset path attributes) and that only paths beginning with old_prefix are affected. However, it omits irreversibility, whether unmatched paths are untouched, and whether failure is atomic across the subtree.

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 short sentences with the bulk/scope statement front-loaded followed by the two mutation targets. No filler, though nothing addresses risk or failure modes.

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?

Output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but for a destructive bulk mutation with three parameters the description should at minimum note irreversibility and what happens to prims whose paths do not match. What's present is accurate but leaves meaningful operational 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are documented with examples in the schema itself. The description's only extra signal is the prefix-matching behavior ('start with old_prefix'), which the schema already conveys via 'The path prefix to find'. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Bulk-update material reference paths in a subtree') and elaborates that both relationship targets and asset path attributes are rewritten. The scope is unambiguous, though it never distinguishes itself from any sibling (none of the listed siblings covers path rewriting, so the omission is minor).

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 indication of when to use this versus alternative approaches (e.g. per-prim edits or execute_script), no prerequisites such as the new location already existing, and no caution about the destructive, non-reversible nature of a bulk rewrite.

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