editor_create_box_collider

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully notes the operation is scoped to a loaded parent and that the response returns the collider's effective properties, but says nothing about name collisions, reversibility, permissions, or whether the collider is immediately active in play mode.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. Its brevity is close to under-specification rather than verbosity, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return value needn't be described, and the nested size/center shapes are covered by the schema. However, for a 5-required-param mutation tool with no annotations, the description omits isTrigger semantics, name uniqueness behavior, and any guidance on obtaining a valid parentId beyond what the schema says.

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 60%: size, center, and parentId are documented in-schema, but the description adds no parameter meaning at all. The two undocumented params, name and isTrigger, get no clarification — in particular isTrigger's behavioral effect (trigger volume vs solid collision) is left unexplained in both places.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Creates a BoxCollider") and the placement target ("under a loaded parent actor"), which separates it from the sibling modifier editor_set_box_collider and reader editor_box_collider_details. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied: the verb "creates" signals this is for adding a new collider rather than editing an existing one, and "loaded parent actor" hints at a precondition. There is no explicit when-to-use vs editor_set_box_collider / editor_box_collider_details, and no stated failure conditions.

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