rotate_mesh_uvs

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

Adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: 'No undo entry' warns the mutation is not reversible via undo, and it clarifies that the returned actor_name is the component name rather than the actor label. This complements the destructiveHint=true annotation with concrete consequences, though it doesn't state permission requirements.

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 action, then a compact Returns block. Slightly dense single sentence with the '0 degrees changes nothing' no-op note duplicated in the Returns block, but overall tight and well-ordered.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the return fields and flagging the lack of undo. It covers the important quirks for correct invocation, with permissions/auth being the only notable omission.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description ties rotation_origin_u/v together as a 'UV-space pivot' and confirms the angle is in degrees, adding minor meaning but nothing beyond the schema baseline.

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 precise verb+resource+scope: rotate all UVs of one channel on a DynamicMeshActor's live dynamic mesh in the editor world. This is enough to distinguish it from siblings like translate_mesh_uvs, scale_mesh_uvs, and copy_mesh_uv_channel without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is implied (a UV-editing mutation) and it notes the 0-degree no-op edge case, but it never states when to prefer this over sibling UV tools or any prerequisites. No explicit alternatives are named, so context is only inferred.

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