remove_static_mesh_collision

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

Despite annotations already declaring destructive/idempotent, the description adds substantial context: the internal call chain, that physics meshes are rebuilt and the asset saved, the duplicate-first handling of read-only /Engine sources, and that already-empty meshes are a no-op reported via already_empty.

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, then behavior, then an explicit Returns block. Some implementation minutiae (InvalidatePhysicsData + AggGeom.EmptyElements) are extra but still informative; the Returns summary is useful 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?

For a 2-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the effect, the idempotency edge cases, the save behavior, and the return shape, leaving no gap an agent needs to call it 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already explains that dest_path is only needed for non-/Game sources. The description restates the duplicate-first rationale but adds no syntax or format detail 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 and resource — clearing ALL simple/convex collision primitives from a UStaticMesh's BodySetup — and explicitly frames itself as the 'clear' half of the collision CRUD, which distinguishes it from add_simple_collision_to_static_mesh and the set_* collision siblings.

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 'clear half of the collision CRUD' framing implies the relationship to the add counterpart, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance versus set_static_mesh_convex_collision or set_static_mesh_kdop_collision. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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