rebuild_navigation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description confirms a build trigger and adds the return shape, but does not say what existing nav data is discarded, whether it can fail without a nav system, or what the cost is.

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?

One sentence of purpose followed by a compact enumeration of return keys; front-loaded and free of filler. The return-field list is slightly raw but genuinely informative 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 parameters and no output schema, the description usefully supplies the return keys (rebuilt, nav_system_present, message, success, nav_data_count). It still omits the operational context an agent needs before calling a destructive rebuild: what triggers it, what is invalidated, and whether a nav system must already exist.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and there is no semantic gap for the description to fill. Baseline 4 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?

Names a specific verb (rebuild) and resource (navigation system) scoped to the editor world, so an agent can tell what it does at a glance. It does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as diagnose_navmesh or get_navigation_info, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The phrase 'on the editor world's navigation system' implies this is used after world/geometry changes that invalidate nav data, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite, and no named alternative to diagnose the navmesh instead. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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