generate_pcg_component

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

Annotations only declare the generic safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), so the description carries the real behavioral burden here and does it well: it discloses that generation is asynchronous, resolved over subsequent editor ticks, and that the return is a scheduled task id rather than a finished result. That is exactly the kind of non-obvious trait an agent needs before deciding to call it.

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-loads the verb and the critical async caveat, with no wasted preamble. The trailing parenthetical '(honest)' is minor noise that doesn't earn its place, but the return-field list at the end is useful given there is no output schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description takes responsibility for the return shape and does so by enumerating actor_name, scheduled, task_id, is_generating, generated, note. Combined with the async/polling guidance, an agent has everything needed to call it and follow up 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 description coverage is 100%, so both actor_name and force are already documented in the schema with their meaning and defaults. The description adds no further syntax or constraint detail for the parameters, so it sits at the baseline for a fully-described schema.

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 ('Triggers PCG generation on an actor's UPCGComponent') and distinguishes itself from the getter siblings by naming them as the polling alternatives. An agent can tell it apart from get_pcg_component_info without opening 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?

Explicitly tells the agent that this call only schedules work and routes it to get_pcg_component_info / get_pcg_generated_data for completion. It gives clear positive context and alternatives, though it doesn't state prerequisites (e.g. the component must already exist via add_pcg_component) or a when-not-to-use case.

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