set_rvt_volume_bounds

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: it sets BoundsAlignActor, recomputes the volume transform to cover the actor plus primitives writing to the volume's RVT, and requires an existing RVT binding. It stops short of describing error behavior or explicitly restating irreversibility.

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, followed by engine equivalence, mutation mechanism, prerequisite, optional parameters, and return shape. Every sentence contributes useful context for a complex mutation, with no obvious filler. It is slightly dense but appropriately sized for the operation.

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 usefully supplies the return shape ({ volume_name, bounds_align_actor, snap_to_landscape, expand_bounds, applied }). It also covers the prerequisite and the mutation mechanism, which are the key facts for this 4-parameter tool. It does not address failure modes or whether the tool operates in PIE versus editor, but the definition is largely complete against the safety annotations.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the input schema and the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'Optional landscape texel-snap + bounds expansion,' which mirrors snap_to_landscape and expand_bounds but adds no new syntactic or behavioral meaning beyond the schema. It also references BoundsAlignActor, which is already covered by bounds_align_actor.

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: 'Fit an existing ARuntimeVirtualTextureVolume's bounds to an actor,' with the engine equivalent RuntimeVirtualTexture::SetBounds. It distinguishes itself from create_rvt_volume by naming it as a prerequisite and from read-only RVT tools by making clear it mutates bounds. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

Specifies the prerequisite condition ('The volume must already have its RVT bound (create_rvt_volume)') and the primary scenario of fitting bounds to an actor, usually a landscape. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives such as get_rvt_info, but the usage context is clear and actionable.

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