chaos_configure_cloth_component

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It implies a mutating operation ('Configure') but does not mention side effects, whether existing cloth settings are replaced, editor-only behavior, performance implications, or failure conditions. The KB reference hints that more details exist but does not make them available to the agent directly.

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 description is short and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a useful example and a KB pointer. The example earns its place by demonstrating the calling convention and common arguments. It is compact and not padded with filler.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations), the description is clearly insufficient for correct invocation. The KB reference and example provide some orientation but do not document the majority of parameters, expected behavior, or prerequisites. An agent would likely need to consult external documentation to call this tool reliably.

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 0%, and the description lists only a few parameter names in an example (actor_name, update_in_editor, cloth_max_distance_scale, force_reset) without explaining their meaning or valid ranges. This is minimal compensation for a tool with 11 undocumented parameters. Most parameters remain semantically opaque.

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 states a specific verb ('Configure') and a precise resource ('cloth simulation on a SkeletalMeshComponent'), which distinguishes it from sibling Chaos tools that target solvers or geometry collections. The example reinforces the intended use case. It is clear but not as sharply scoped as it could be about what specific cloth aspects are affected.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, and there are no preconditions, exclusions, or 'use X instead' guidance. The KB link is a pointer to external reference material, not inline usage guidance. An agent would have to infer context from the tool name and siblings.

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