create_box_collision

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses meaningful behavior beyond the schema: local-space construction, tight oriented boxes for rotated assets, automatic UCX_<object>_01 naming, wireframe display, and exclusion from renders. This gives the agent a clear model of side effects.

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?

Three concise sentences front-load the primary purpose, then add high-value technical details. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary context.

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?

For a creation tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers core behavior, coordinate space, naming, and rendering implications. It does not explicitly address return values or the collection/parent_to_source parameters, but the essential invocation context is present.

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 60%, and the description adds useful semantics for the key behavior ('matching an object's bounding box', local space, automatic naming). However, collection and parent_to_source have no description in either the schema or the tool description, leaving part of the parameter surface unexplained.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Create a UCX_ box collider matching an object's bounding box.' It clearly differentiates this from the sibling create_convex_collision by specifying 'box collider' and gives the exact naming convention. An agent can confidently identify what this tool does.

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 implies usage through the phrase 'the convention Unreal expects,' but it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over create_convex_collision or when not to use it. With a close sibling present, the lack of explicit routing is a notable gap.

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