create_physics_asset

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

Annotations declare the safety profile (not read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world), and the description adds substantial context beyond that: it generates bodies/constraints from a skeletal mesh, sets the preview mesh, saves the asset, does not repoint the mesh, and returns an existing asset unchanged. One soft tension exists: 'An existing one there is returned unchanged' reads as idempotent behavior while idempotentHint=false, though this is not a hard contradiction.

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?

The core sentence is dense but front-loaded and useful. However, return values are stated twice ('Returns bodies, constraints, skeleton_bones, bodies_generated, saved.' followed by a fuller 'Returns: {...}'), which is redundant and slightly inconsistent, hurting tightness.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately enumerates the returned fields (package_path, already_existed, created, saved, bodies_generated, generation_message, save_error) and covers the key side effects. Parameters are fully covered by the schema, so an agent has enough to call the tool 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 name, package_path, and skeletal_mesh_path in detail. The description only echoes package_path/name and the skeletal-mesh origin, adding little syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline of 3.

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 ('Creates a UPhysicsAsset at package_path/name') plus its generation behavior, so the operation is unambiguous. It implicitly differentiates from the sibling assign_skeletal_mesh_physics_asset by noting 'the mesh is not pointed at the new asset', but it never names a sibling explicitly, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no comparison to alternatives such as assign_skeletal_mesh_physics_asset or get_physics_asset_info. The description explains what happens, not when an agent should pick this tool over another.

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