add_simple_collision_to_static_mesh

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false. The description adds value beyond them by explaining the accumulation mechanic, the mesh-saving behavior, and the out-of-/Game duplication to dest_path. This is meaningful behavioral context the annotations do not convey.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then a scoping caveat, then the return shape. Every sentence carries information and nothing is padded, though the inline return list is slightly dense.

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?

There is no output schema, so including the return fields (collision_added, duplicated_to_game, saved, save_error) is justified and useful. Combined with the non-idempotency and duplication disclosure, the definition is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 the schema fully documents shape, dest_path and static_mesh_path. The description restates the shape options and the dest_path duplication role but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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 (appends) and resource (one simple collision primitive sized to a UStaticMesh's bounds in its BodySetup) and explicitly names the shape options. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling collision tools like set_static_mesh_convex_collision or remove_static_mesh_collision.

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?

Gives a clear operational context: it is not idempotent and each call adds one more, directed to clear them with remove_static_mesh_collision. It also explains the dest_path duplication condition. It lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over other collision-setting siblings, but the when-to-use context is solid.

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