object-collision_proxy_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the proxy is generated from the object's bounds and uses a predictable naming scheme, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects, whether an existing proxy gets replaced, or what the tool returns.

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 or redundancy. It states the action, target, and naming behavior efficiently.

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?

For a 4-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, this one-sentence description is under-specified. It lacks usage context, limitations, and parameter semantics, and does not clarify the relationship to the similarly named collision hulls tool.

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 needed to explain the parameters, but it only indirectly hints at 'object' via 'bounds' and 'name' via the naming convention. The 'margin' and 'shape' parameters receive no meaningful elaboration beyond their schema titles.

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') with a clear resource ('collision proxy') and states the scope ('around an object's bounds') plus the naming convention ('Asset_COL'). This distinguishes it from siblings like object-collision_hulls_create, which implies a different collision generation approach.

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 the similar sibling object-collision_hulls_create or object-lod_create. There are no stated alternatives, exclusions, or context clues for selecting this proxy-creation method over other collision options.

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