delete_triangle_from_mesh

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

Beyond the destructive/readOnly annotations, it discloses two things an agent could not infer: that a missing ID is not an error and simply returns deleted=false, and that no undo entry is created. It also clarifies that the returned actor_name is the component name rather than the actor label, which prevents a real misinterpretation.

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 action is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the error-handling and undo caveats, then the explicit return shape. Semicolon-heavy but every clause carries information; the added return enumeration is worth the space given no output schema exists.

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 supplies the full return shape (actor_name, triangle_id, deleted, triangle_count, previous_triangle_count), the error semantics, the undo behavior, and the target context. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: it explains that triangle_id need not resolve to a valid triangle (missing ID yields deleted=false rather than an error), and that actor_name resolves to the component name of the target. That is genuine added semantics beyond the schema text.

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 gives a specific verb (delete), a precise unit (one triangle by ID), a target resource (a DynamicMeshActor's live dynamic mesh), and the context (editor world). This cleanly separates it from sibling delete_selected_triangles_from_mesh, which operates on a selection rather than a single ID.

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 establishes when this applies (live dynamic mesh in the editor world) and adds a usage-relevant caveat that there is no undo entry. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternative (delete_selected_triangles_from_mesh) or state exclusions, so it falls short of the explicit when/when-not routing that earns a 5.

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