create_procedural_box_mesh

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it explains that section_index can overwrite an existing section, and crucially that validation happens 'before anything changes' (atomicity), which is not derivable from the annotations.

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 front-loaded sentences cover generation, section behavior, and error conditions, followed by a compact Returns block. No filler, though the API path mention is slightly redundant with the tool name.

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?

Even though no output schema exists, the description supplies the return shape (actor_label, section_index, vertex_count, triangle_count, total_sections), and the mutation/error semantics are covered. Complete enough for an agent to call and interpret results, with only minor room for confirmation of permission requirements.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including box_radius defaults and component_index. The description reinforces section_index semantics but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Generate a box mesh ... push it into a procedural mesh component as a single section') and pins the exact underlying API (UKismetProceduralMeshLibrary::GenerateBoxMesh). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling create_procedural_grid_mesh without the agent needing to open 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?

It gives clear operational context: section_index replaces an existing section or appends when equal to the count, and invalid values (negative or past the count) are errors. That tells the agent when the call will mutate vs append. It does not, however, name alternatives such as create_procedural_grid_mesh or clear_procedural_mesh, so the explicit when-to-use-this-instead guidance is absent.

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