set_static_mesh_collision_complexity

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing several non-obvious behaviors: a BodySetup is created if missing, the asset is saved afterward, a failed save is treated as an error, and an invalid complexity value is silently coerced to default. These side effects and failure modes are exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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 core action in one dense but readable sentence, then appends the return shape compactly. Every clause earns its place (side effects, error, coercion), though the single long sentence is 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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape ({ static_mesh_path, collision_complexity, saved }) inline and covers mutation semantics, error handling, and value coercion. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the accepted complexity strings and the silent-default fallback. The description reinforces the fallback but adds no new parameter-level meaning, 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 (set), resource (UStaticMesh asset), and attribute (collision complexity / BodySetup CollisionTraceFlag). It also names the underlying engine field, which pins down exactly what is being changed and distinguishes it from siblings like set_static_mesh_convex_collision or set_static_mesh_kdop_collision.

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 (call it to set the collision trace flag) and it warns that an unrecognized complexity silently becomes default, advising the caller to verify via the read-back field. However, it never states when to use this versus the convex/kdop/simple-collision siblings, nor any prerequisites.

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