is_bvh_valid_for_mesh

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds substantial non-obvious context beyond them: no BVH is retained between calls, staleness is deliberately untracked, a BVH is built against the mesh's current state, the mesh is not mutated, and bvh_valid=false means no valid BVH could be built.

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 purpose, and each following sentence (staleness rationale, false-meaning, non-mutation, return shape) carries information. Somewhat dense with internal API names and parentheticals that could be trimmed, keeping it below a 5.

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?

A read-only validity-check tool with one documented parameter; the description even inlines the return shape ({actor_name, bvh_valid}) despite no output schema, and clarifies the field's identity. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and the single actor_name parameter is fully documented, so baseline is 3. The description's note about actor_name actually clarifies the RETURNED field (component name, not actor label), not the input, so it adds little to input-parameter semantics.

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+resource (report BVH validity for a live dynamic mesh) and explicitly names the internal call chain (BuildBVHForMesh then IsBVHValidForMesh). It distinguishes itself from the build_mesh_bvh/rebuild_mesh_bvh siblings by explaining why a fresh check exists at all.

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?

Explains the context that selects this tool: since build_mesh_bvh, rebuild_mesh_bvh and spatial-query tools keep no BVH, this rebuilds one to check validity rather than inspecting a stale kept BVH. It gives clear context but does not state an explicit when-not rule or a name-the-alternative routing beyond the mechanism explanation.

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