generate_collision

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Generate collision') without revealing side effects (e.g., overwriting existing collision, modifying the asset permanently, or requiring a saved asset). This lack of transparency could lead an agent to invoke it without understanding its impact.

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 sentence with zero wasted words, but it is under-specified. It lacks structure and doesn't provide any context such as default behavior or prerequisites. While concise, it sacrifices useful information, so it doesn't fully earn its place as a standalone guide.

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?

This is a mutation tool (generating collision) with no annotations or output schema. The description fails to explain key context like whether existing collision is replaced, what the 'auto' type does, or whether the mesh must be saved. For a tool that modifies assets, this is incomplete and could lead to misuse.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description doesn't add parameter-level detail, but it doesn't need to since the schema already explains 'type' and 'mesh_path'. However, it doesn't clarify how different 'type' values (e.g., 'auto') affect behavior, so no additional value is provided beyond the schema.

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 'Generate collision for a static mesh' uses a specific verb ('Generate') and identifies the exact resource ('collision' for a 'static mesh'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like generate_lods or generate_lightmap_uvs, which target different mesh attributes. The purpose is unambiguous and concise.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as generate_lods or validate_assets. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios. The only implicit usage is derived from the name, which is insufficient for an AI to decide between similar mesh-processing tools.

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