scale_dynamic_mesh

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the editor-transaction behavior, the two error conditions (non-three-number scale, empty mesh), and the explicit 1,1,1 no-op outcome (applied=false with a note) — real behavioral detail beyond the annotations.

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?

The action and its implementation are front-loaded, followed by error and edge-case behavior, then a compact return shape. Two sentences plus a Returns block, with no redundant filler; the only slight overhead is naming the internal UGeometryScript function, which an agent does not need.

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 output schema, the description compensates by documenting the return object fields, and it covers failure modes and the degenerate 1,1,1 case — enough for correct invocation. The main remaining gap is whether the scale is applied in local or world space, which is unstated.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: the scale must be exactly three numbers or it is an error, and 1,1,1 is a recognized no-change value. The return field names (scale_x/y/z) also reinforce the per-axis interpretation of the vector parameter.

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 states a precise verb+resource ('Scale the live dynamic mesh of a DynamicMeshActor') and even names the underlying function, so the agent knows exactly what is mutated. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like transform_dynamic_mesh, rotate_dynamic_mesh, or translate_dynamic_mesh, but the verb makes the distinction inferable.

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 only implied: it applies to a live dynamic mesh on a DynamicMeshActor. There is no statement of when to prefer this over transform_dynamic_mesh (which can also scale) or other mesh-modification siblings, and no prerequisites such as selection or edit-mode requirements are given.

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