cleanup_pcg_component

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, but the description adds the non-obvious failure mode (generate_pcg_component force reuses the cached result, leaving stale meshes while flags read generated:true) and instructs verification against spawned components rather than the generated flag. That is real behavioral context beyond the annotations and does not contradict them.

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-loaded with the core action and its consequence; the workflow guidance follows in a tight package. It is dense and capitalized emphasis is emphatic, but every sentence carries operational meaning.

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 destructive, non-idempotent tool with no output schema, it covers the hazard, the ordering requirement, the verification method, and an additional use case (clearing content before moving/resizing), and even names the return fields. Nothing an agent needs to avoid the stale-cache trap is missing.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by prescribing when remove_components must be true (as part of the ordered wipe-generate-verify sequence), which the schema's 'default false' note alone does not convey.

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?

Specific verb (wipe) plus resource (a PCG component's generated output) and an explicit scope note (synchronously). It clearly names generate_pcg_component as the sibling it complements, so an agent can route between them without opening either schema.

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 an explicit when-to-use (after editing a graph, before moving/resizing a volume) and a concrete ordered procedure: call with remove_components=true FIRST, then generate, then verify by re-reading spawned components. It also names the alternative (generate_pcg_component with force) and says why it fails.

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