rebuild_mesh_bvh

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real value beyond them: the BVH is a temporary that is not kept, the mesh is not changed, and the call fails unless the engine reports no error and the BVH reads back valid. It could still note idempotency or error-message shape, so not a 5.

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 core action and the key temporary-BVH insight, then gives a Returns block. Two dense paragraphs with little waste, though the Returns line is slightly cramped and could be tightened.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description supplies the return shape (actor_name, bvh_rebuilt, bvh_valid) plus failure semantics, and annotations cover the safety profile. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only minor gaps like error detail remain.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: actor_name is clarified as the dynamic mesh component's name rather than the actor label, and b_only_if_invalid is contextualized (the temporary BVH always rebuilds, so the flag has no effect). This is meaningful added semantics over 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?

States a specific verb (Build) and resource (a BVH for the live dynamic mesh of a DynamicMeshActor) and explains the build-then-readback nature via RebuildBVHForMesh/IsBVHValidForMesh. It effectively frames the tool as a validation check rather than a persistent operation, distinguishing it from the sibling build_mesh_bvh and is_bvh_valid_for_mesh.

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 operative context: the BVH is temporary and not kept, spatial-query tools build their own on every call, so this only verifies a BVH can be built for the mesh as it now stands. That tells the agent when this tool matters, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives for contrast.

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