object.collision_proxy_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It mentions the naming convention but omits important behavioral details such as whether existing proxies are replaced, permissions required, or side effects like overrides.

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 20-word sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and naming convention, with no wasted words.

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 no output schema and low schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It explains the naming convention but lacks details on valid shapes (only BOX), margin effects, and differentiation from similar tools like collision_hulls_create.

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 must compensate. It only adds the naming convention context for the 'name' parameter. Other parameters (shape, margin, object) rely on schema titles, with no additional semantic explanation in the description.

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 clearly specifies the verb 'Create', the resource 'a simple collision proxy around an object's bounds', and the naming convention 'Asset_COL', distinguishing it from sibling tools like object.collision_hulls_create.

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 implies usage for simple proxies via the word 'simple', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like collision_hulls_create, nor provides exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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