ue_pcg_generate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the action (regenerate) and the target (actor with PCGComponent), which is transparent about the core behavior. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing generated data) or any prerequisites beyond the graph modification.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no redundant information. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

The core purpose and timing are clear, but the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and the parameters are left unexplained. Given the complexity of a PCG regeneration tool, more context about parameters and result expectations would be needed for full completeness.

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 does not explain the 'force' or 'label' parameters. With low coverage, the description must compensate, but it provides no additional meaning beyond the raw schema fields.

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 uses a specific verb 'Fa rigenerare' (regenerates) and clearly states the resource: the PCG of an actor (a PCGVolume or any actor with a PCGComponent). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ue_pcg_cleanup or ue_pcg_graph_info.

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 explicitly says when to call: 'Da chiamare dopo aver modificato il grafo' (to be called after modifying the graph). It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though the sibling list suggests this is the intended action for regeneration.

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