build_hlod

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: it is HEAVY/async, cannot be driven from a single request, and honestly reports that build_started is often false with a note explaining why. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs to avoid misinterpreting a successful call as a completed build.

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 action, then explains the async constraint and the honest return shape. Each sentence carries distinct information; slightly dense but no filler.

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 the description's explicit return shape ({ world, is_world_partition, build_started, note }) is essential and present. For a 0-param tool with this complexity, the definition is complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 ('Triggers a world HLOD build for the current editor world'), which is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distance itself from siblings like create_hlod_layer or get_hlod_layer_info, but the build action is distinct enough to identify.

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 gives the key prerequisite ('requires a World Partition world plus the WorldPartitionHLODsBuilder commandlet') and notes it cannot run synchronously, which implicitly scopes when it applies. However, it never names an alternative tool or says when to prefer build_hlod versus the sibling HLOD-layer tools.

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