object-collision_hulls_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the main side effect (creating hulls), the spatial scope (object bounds), and the naming behavior (Asset_COL_##), but it does not mention whether existing hulls are replaced, whether the source object must be selected, or what scene-level changes occur beyond creating named objects.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds content: creation, collision hulls, split-box method, object bounds, and naming convention.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not explain the resulting scene state, how the generated axes/count map to hulls, or how this tool relates to the nearby collision_proxy_create sibling. It is sufficient for recognizing the tool but not for invoking it with confidence in all parameter combinations.

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%, so the description should compensate by explaining parameters. It only loosely covers object bounds and the naming prefix; 'margin' and the detailed axis/count behavior are left to schema titles. The description adds context but not enough parameter-level meaning to bridge the low schema coverage.

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 ('Create') and resource ('box collision hulls'), and clearly states the method ('split box across an object's bounds') and naming convention ('generic Asset_COL_## names'). This distinguishes it from related sibling tools like object-collision_proxy_create by emphasizing split/box hulls rather than a generic proxy.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as object-collision_proxy_create or object-lod_create. The description states what the tool does but does not provide decision context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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