slice_fracture

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 adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the operation persists by saving the asset, it fails when no new pieces are produced, angle/offset variation is fixed at zero, and islands are split. This extra behavioral detail raises it above the annotation baseline.

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 core behavior and failure conditions are front-loaded in the first paragraph, with the return shape given compactly afterward. It is dense and mostly earns its place, though the inline Returns block is a bit verbose relative to the rest.

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 formal output schema, the description supplies the return fields inline, discloses the save/failure semantics, and clarifies the fixed-variation behavior. It is nearly self-sufficient; only external prerequisites (asset must exist, editor/world context) are left 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description restates what the slice counts do (evenly spaced cuts across bounds) and explains the failure case when all are 0, but adds little on grout or random_seed beyond what the schema already says.

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 and resource ('Slices all transforms of a UGeometryCollection asset') plus the exact mechanism (regular grid of slices_x by slices_y by slices_z cuts across its bounds) and the post-action (then saves it). An agent can distinguish this grid-slice behavior from plane_cut_fracture or fracture_geometry_collection from the description alone, 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?

The description gives meaningful conditions (fails on an empty collection or when all three slice counts are 0) and implies usage as a destructive grid-fracture-then-save operation. However, it never names an alternative sibling (e.g. plane_cut_fracture, fracture_geometry_collection) or states when to prefer one over the other, so usage is implied rather than explicit.

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