transform_dynamic_mesh

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true / idempotent=false, and the description goes well beyond them: it states the operation runs in an editor transaction, that malformed location/scale or an empty mesh is an error, and that an identity transform succeeds with applied=false and a note leaving the mesh unchanged. That identity/error/no-op disclosure is exactly the kind of edge-case behavior an agent needs before mutating a live mesh.

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 the two failure/no-op rules, then a compact Returns block. Every sentence carries information, though the Returns enumeration is verbose for a tool with no output schema (justifiable since the schema is absent).

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 does the right thing by enumerating the return fields, and it covers the key failure and no-op cases for a destructive transform. It could be more complete about the transaction/undo implications and the actor-type precondition, but for a 4-param tool with full schema coverage it is close to sufficient.

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%, including an unusually detailed rotation schema that spells out the object form vs the array [pitch, yaw, roll] pitfall, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description reinforces that location/scale must be three numbers but adds no syntax beyond the schema; baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — 'Apply a full FTransform (translation + rotation + scale) to the live dynamic mesh of a DynamicMeshActor' — and even names the underlying engine function. The 'full FTransform' framing implicitly separates it from the single-axis siblings (translate_dynamic_mesh, rotate_dynamic_mesh, scale_dynamic_mesh), but it never names those alternatives explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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: applying a full transform in one call. The description does not say when to prefer this over the component-wise siblings, nor any prerequisites (e.g., that the actor must be a DynamicMeshActor with a non-empty live mesh). The error conditions hint at preconditions but are framed as failures, not as guidance for choosing the tool.

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