maya_unreal_make_collision

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

No annotations, so description carries the burden. It discloses the dry_run behavior, the convex hull limitation in Maya 2022, and the export requirement. However, it does not explicitly say whether existing collision meshes are overwritten or if the operation is reversible, which would add more transparency.

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?

Well-structured: a one-sentence purpose statement, a critical export note, then a clear Args list. Each piece of information is useful and non-redundant, despite being longer than two sentences.

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 has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and a critical workflow integration point (FBX export). The only minor omission is the return value for non-dry-run, but the dry_run description implies it.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description explains every parameter in detail: objects (with fallback selection logic), shape (with each option explained), padding, reduce_to, and dry_run. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 the tool creates collision meshes following Unreal rules, with specific prefix naming (UBX_/USP_/UCP_/UCX_). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like maya_unreal_make_lods and maya_unreal_export_fbx.

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?

Explicitly tells users to include the collision meshes in the same FBX export via maya_unreal_export_fbx, and for convex shapes recommends using Unreal's Auto Convex Collision instead. This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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