translate_dynamic_mesh

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond that: it runs in an editor transaction, rejects non-three-number translations and empty meshes as errors, and returns applied=false with a note on a zero translation. Missing only things like undo/auth specifics.

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 verb and target, then edge-case behavior, then the return shape; every sentence carries information. The internal symbol path is somewhat redundant but plausibly aids precision, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 supplies the return object, covers the mutation semantics, error cases and the zero-translation no-op path, while annotations carry the destructive/idempotency profile. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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, but the description adds a validation constraint the array-typed schema does not express: the translation must be exactly three numbers or it is an error. That is genuine meaning beyond the structured field.

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 (translate) and resource (the live dynamic mesh of a DynamicMeshActor), and the sibling set contains rotate_dynamic_mesh, scale_dynamic_mesh and transform_dynamic_mesh, so the operation is clearly distinguished from adjacent mesh ops.

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 implies the context (live dynamic mesh, editor transaction) but never states when to reach for this instead of transform_dynamic_mesh, set_actor_transform, or rotate/scale_dynamic_mesh. Usage is inferable from the verb but no explicit routing or exclusions are given.

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