generate_collision

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention if the operation is destructive (replaces existing collision), requires specific permissions, or affects the asset's save state. It also doesn't clarify what the 'auto' type does or if it modifies the asset in place. This is insufficient for a tool that likely modifies assets.

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, short sentence that directly states the purpose. It's appropriately concise and front-loaded, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite full schema coverage and a clear verb, the description lacks crucial workflow context. For a tool that likely modifies assets, it doesn't mention if it's reversible, if it requires a loaded project, or if it's part of a larger pipeline. Sibling tools suggest this is an Unreal Editor automation tool, but without annotations or output schema, the description should explain more about what happens after generation.

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 100% for both parameters. The description adds value by stating the action on 'mesh_path', but it doesn't add any additional meaning like format constraints or example paths. Since the schema is thorough, baseline 3 is appropriate; the description doesn't elevate it.

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 action (generate collision) and resource (static mesh) clearly, but it's brief and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like validate_assets or import_asset, though it is unique among the listed siblings. It doesn't specify what type of collision or any further nuance, so it's clear but not detailed.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like the mesh being imported, or that this should be used before baking or cooking content. The description just says 'Generate collision' without context on scenarios or exclusions.

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