compute_gc_proximity

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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that the rebuild happens in place and is saved, that the operation is undoable, that it fails when the save fails, and that the graph state can be verified afterwards via get_gc_hierarchy_info. That is real behavioral value beyond the destructiveHint/readOnlyHint flags.

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, then the follow-up verification, then the returns. Slightly redundant in restating return values in both prose ('Returns proximity_pairs, transform_count, success and saved') and the explicit 'Returns:' block.

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, so the description carries the return-shape burden and does so with concrete field names and types, plus success/failure semantics and a verification path. Complete enough for an agent to call and interpret results.

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 and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage ('Asset path of the UGeometryCollection'). The description adds nothing about the path format or constraints, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (rebuilds), resource (proximity/adjacency graph of a UGeometryCollection), and scope (in place, saves it). An agent can distinguish it from the read-only siblings like get_gc_hierarchy_info and from set_gc_connection_settings.

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?

It implies the operation's context (rebuild the graph after geometry changes, then verify via get_gc_hierarchy_info reporting proximity_computed true), but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus alternatives such as cluster_geometry_collection or set_gc_connection_settings.

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