remove_unused_vertices

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, openWorld=false, readOnly=false. The description adds real value beyond them: vertex IDs are NOT renumbered (a downstream-reference hazard), render data is refreshed, and the operation is a no-op on already-clean meshes. The only tension is that a no-op-on-repeat arguably implies idempotence while idempotentHint=false, but this is a nuance rather than a contradiction.

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?

Two sentences: the first front-loads the action and its scope, the second carries the caveats and the return payload. Dense and front-loaded, with no filler, though the enumerated return fields make the tail slightly heavy.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (vertex_count_before, vertex_count, vertices_removed, removed) along with the ID-renumbering caveat and the no-op case. An agent has enough to call it correctly, though the missing alternatives to sibling mesh-cleanup tools is a residual gap.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents actor_name fully (label/object name, case-insensitive, target DynamicMeshActor). The description adds no format, syntax, or constraint detail beyond what the schema states, 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Remove the vertices no triangle references from a DynamicMeshActor's live dynamic mesh'), plus the scope ('in the editor world'). It is clearly separable from nearby mesh siblings like compact_mesh, weld_mesh_edges, or delete_triangle_from_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?

It states the precondition case ('a clean mesh is a no-op'), which helps an agent decide whether calling is worthwhile, but it never names an alternative (e.g., compact_mesh or delete_triangle_from_mesh) or explains when to prefer this over them. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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