set_static_mesh_kdop_collision

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, destructive, idempotent behavior, so the description clears the lower bar and adds real context: the duplicate-first logic that copies a read-only /Engine source into dest_path, and failure signaling via a negative subsystem index surfaced as a clean error. It does not address repeat-invocation behavior, which is relevant given idempotentHint=true on an "add" operation.

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 action, followed by shape values, the duplication side effect, error behavior, and a return-field list. Efficient overall, though the raw API/editor-action parentheticals are implementation detail that an agent does not strictly 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the return fields (collision_added, duplicated_to_game, saved, save_error?, etc.), plus the mutation and duplication side effects. For a destructive mutation tool this is nearly complete, with the only gap being prerequisites/permissions, which the annotations partly imply.

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. The description restates the shape enum values and the dest_path conditional, both of which the schema already documents; it adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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+resource+mechanism: adds a K-DOP simple collision hull to a UStaticMesh, and names the underlying editor action (AddSimpleCollisionsWithNotification / "Add K-DOP Simplified Collision"). The K-DOP specificity inherently separates it from convex/other collision siblings, but no sibling is named explicitly to reinforce that contrast.

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 rather than stated: the dest_path explanation ("required only when the source is not under /Game") gives an implicit condition of use, and the duplicate-first note hints at when the tool will copy assets. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs sibling collision tools (set_static_mesh_convex_collision, add_simple_collision_to_static_mesh) or when-not-to-use guidance.

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