mat_set_map_slot

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

Annotations already flag the tool as non-read-only and destructive. The description adds that it creates a new map and points it at a path, which clarifies the mechanism, but it does not disclose whether an existing map on the slot is overwritten or what happens if the bitmap path is invalid.

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 compact and front-loads the primary action with concrete examples. The bilingual Chinese/English duplication is mildly redundant but intentional and does not add significant bloat.

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 description plus schema covers purpose, examples, and parameter meanings, which is sufficient for typical calls. However, as a destructive mutation with no output schema, it misses important context such as replacement of an existing slot map and whether path is mandatory for Bitmaptexture. This leaves minor but real gaps for an agent to navigate.

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 covers all four parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds concrete slot-name examples (diffuseMap, base_color_map, bumpMap) that go beyond the schema's generic 'slot name' definition, helping an agent choose valid values. Other parameter details, such as mapClass default and path applicability, are mostly restated from the schema.

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 specific action: attach a map to a named slot of a material, with concrete examples like "diffuseMap" and "bumpMap". It also explains that it creates a map of the specified mapClass and points it at a path, making the tool's function unambiguous and distinguishable from generic property setters like mat_set_property.

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 implies when to use the tool by defining its purpose and slot examples, but it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools such as mat_set_slot, mat_set_property, or map_create_bitmap. It also omits prerequisites like the material needing to exist or whether path is required for Bitmaptexture.

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