add_spawnable_to_sequence

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

Annotations already declare the write profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the safety bar is lower. The description adds real behavior beyond them by exposing a 'saved' flag and an optional 'save_error' — telling the agent the operation persists the asset and can partially fail. It does not say whether duplicates create new bindings, what permissions are needed, or whether the actor is instantiated now.

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?

Two sentences, purpose front-loaded, then a compact return shape. Nothing is padded and no sentence restates the tool name.

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?

With no output schema declared, the description compensates by enumerating the return object, which is exactly what an agent needs to chain calls. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, only prerequisites (sequence existence, duplicate-spawnable behavior) are missing.

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%: class_name documents the AActor subclass options and the '/Script/Module.Class' form, and sequence_name documents the /Game AssetName lookup. The description adds no syntax or constraint beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: adding a spawnable actor binding to a Level Sequence. The '(asset-model, headless)' qualifier usefully signals it edits the sequence asset rather than a running world, which helps separate it from runtime siblings like play_level_sequence_runtime. It never names the closest siblings (bind_actor_to_sequence, add_subcomponent_possessable, get_sequence_spawnables), so a reader must infer the spawnable-vs-possessable distinction.

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 via '(asset-model, headless)' — it suggests editing the sequence asset offline, which is the key selection signal versus binding a live actor. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite statement (e.g. sequence must already exist), and no named alternative. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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