translate_mesh_uvs

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description is consistent with those. It adds genuinely new behavioral context the annotations cannot convey: there is no undo entry (so the change cannot be reverted with undo), and a zero offset is a silent no-op reported via translated=false. It also clarifies the return field semantics.

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?

Two dense sentences plus a Returns line, all front-loaded with the operation and its scope before caveats. Every clause carries information (scope, no-op semantics, undo caveat, name-vs-label warning), though the first sentence packs a lot into one breath.

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, including the Returns object (including the translated flag) is necessary and done. The no-undo caveat and actor_name/component-name distinction close the main gaps. Minor omissions remain, such as whether the modification persists after the actor is rebuilt or what happens if the mesh has no live dynamic mesh instance.

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 schema already documents all four parameters including the '1.0 shifts by one full tile' meaning and the case-insensitive actor_name lookup. The description only restates that translate_u/translate_v are offsets applied to UVs, adding no syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema. 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?

Names a specific verb (offset UVs), a specific resource (one UV channel), and a specific target (a DynamicMeshActor's live dynamic mesh in the editor world). This is clearly distinguishable from mesh-geometry siblings like translate_dynamic_mesh and from other UV siblings like rotate_mesh_uvs/scale_mesh_uvs/repack_mesh_uvs, which apply different operations.

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 editor-world and live-dynamic-mesh scoping implies the context in which it applies, and 'a zero offset changes nothing' gives a useful no-op condition. However, it never states when to prefer this over rotate_mesh_uvs, scale_mesh_uvs, or set_mesh_uv_element_position, nor any prerequisites for the mesh existing.

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