relink_assets

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

Annotations already set destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It does state that paths are 'replaced' / 'repointed', which is useful, but it does not add cautions about irreversibility or side effects; the 'run dryRun first' guidance lives in the schema rather than the description.

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 compact bilingual sentences convey purpose, mechanism, and positioning without filler. Every clause earns its place, and the 'equivalent to Max Asset Tracking' analogy is genuinely informative.

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 3-parameter tool with destructive annotations, the description explains purpose, mechanism, recursion, and typical use case, and the schema fills in all parameter details. It could additionally state what the call returns, but the absence of an output schema and the simple operation make this a minor gap rather than a blocker.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter already carries rich bilingual semantics: types, defaults, recursive search, and a suggested dry-run first. The description's 'search by filename recursively' matches what the schema already says, so it adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: '重新链接丢失的贴图/资源' / 'batch relink missing bitmaps/assets', with the exact mechanism (search folders recursively by filename and replace paths). It also ties it to '修复丢贴图场景' and Max Asset Tracking, which clearly separates it from siblings like find_missing_assets or get_scene_assets that only detect/list assets.

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 frames this as the standard fix for scenes with missing textures, giving an agent a clear when-to-use context. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the explicit routing that would merit a 5.

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