clear_ism_instances

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by clarifying that the component survives the wipe and by describing the returned num_instances (which should be 0), though it doesn't mention auth or side effects on dependent actors.

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 tight sentences plus a return line; the destructive scope and the component-survives caveat are front-loaded, and nothing is redundant padding.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating the return shape and expected value. Combined with annotations covering the mutation profile and a clear alternative, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both actor_name and component_name. The description adds scope semantics ('ALL') but no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, 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 and resource ('Wipe ALL instances from an InstancedStaticMeshComponent in one call') and immediately scopes it by noting the component itself is preserved. It also names the sibling it supersedes (remove_ism_instance), so an agent can distinguish it from the surrounding ISM tools 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?

Gives an explicit use case ('reset a scatter before re-running it') and an explicit exclusion/routing rule ('rather than looping remove_ism_instance'). The condition that selects this tool over the alternative is stated outright.

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