remove_dynamic_mesh_actor

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds meaningful behavior: the destruction is wrapped in an undoable transaction, it fails when no matching DynamicMeshActor exists, and it returns validation data (triangle_count_before) about what was destroyed. This is richer context than the annotations alone provide.

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 action and constraint, and no sentence is wasted. However, the return information is stated twice — once in prose ('Returns the label, internal name and triangle_count_before') and again in the structured 'Returns: { ... }' line — which is minor redundancy since no output schema exists to carry that detail.

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?

For a one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: lookup semantics, failure mode, undoable transaction, creation counterpart, and the full return payload shape. Nothing material 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 description coverage is 100% and the single actor_name parameter already documents 'Label or object name (case-insensitive).' The description echoes this as 'found by label or object name' but adds no resolution syntax, ambiguity handling, or matching details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (Destroy), resource (DynamicMeshActor), scope (editor world), lookup key (label or object name), and transaction semantics in one sentence. It explicitly names the sibling spawn_dynamic_mesh_actor, so an agent can distinguish this removal tool from the many other remove_* siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Gives clear context (editor world, lookup by label/object name), a precondition (fails if the name matches no DynamicMeshActor), and points to the creation counterpart spawn_dynamic_mesh_actor. It does not compare against other deletion paths such as delete_actor or batch_delete_actors, so exclusions are absent, but the usage context is otherwise well specified.

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