editor_set_box_collider

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral trait that the mutation is routed through Undo/Redo history, plus that the target must be loaded. It does not say what error arises from an invalid actorId, whether the operation requires a specific editor state, or that existing values are overwritten.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. The undo/redo clause is the only extra and it earns its place.

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 return values need not be explained. However, for a 4-required-parameter mutation tool with zero annotations, the description should cover prerequisites and failure modes; the nested vector objects and the undocumented isTrigger flag leave gaps.

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 75%, so the schema already explains size, center, and actorId (as a GUID from editor_scene_graph). The description restates the same three fields and adds only the "local" qualifier already present in the schema, leaving isTrigger undocumented 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 (Updates) and resource (a loaded BoxCollider's local size, center, and trigger mode), which is precise enough to separate it from editor_create_box_collider and editor_box_collider_details. It never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than declared.

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 word "loaded" hints that the collider must already exist, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion pointing at editor_create_box_collider for new colliders, and no note about editor vs. play mode. The agent must infer call conditions entirely.

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