clear_dynamic_mesh

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by clarifying exactly what is destroyed (geometry) vs preserved (the actor), and by enumerating the before/after triangle and vertex counts returned, which tells the agent how to verify the effect.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the scope-defining clause front-loaded ahead of the return shape. Every phrase earns its place.

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 single-parameter mutation tool, the description covers the destructive scope, the preserved object, and the return payload even without an output schema. Combined with annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness, an agent has everything needed 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?

Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents actor_name fully. The description adds no format or lookup semantics beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Empty a DynamicMeshActor's live UDynamicMesh in place') and immediately distinguishes the scope from actor deletion with 'keep the actor, drop the geometry'. An agent can separate this from remove_dynamic_mesh_actor and clear_procedural_mesh without opening a 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?

The parenthetical 'keep the actor, drop the geometry' gives clear context for when this differs from removing the actor, and 'in place' signals a mutate-not-destroy-the-object operation. It does not explicitly name the alternative tool to use for full removal, so it stops short of a 5.

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