create_camera_rig_crane

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

With mutations meaningfully unbounded by annotations (only readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false), the description adds real behavioral context: the fixed label CameraRigCrane_MCP (a naming-collision concern on repeated calls), the read-back of crane values, and the critical note that the level is not saved so the agent must persist afterwards. It does not discuss auth or what happens to a pre-existing actor with the same label.

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 core sentence is front-loaded with the verb, resource, and the two must-know facts (fixed label, unsaved level). The separate Returns line partially duplicates the in-text mention of returned values but is compact and useful given there is no output schema.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is created, its naming, the non-persistence caveat, and an enumeration of returned fields. It leaves edge cases (repeated spawns, failure modes despite the success field) implicit, but nothing critical is 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%, so defaults and ranges (arm_length 0-100000, location axis bounds) are already documented. The description only restates pitch/yaw/arm_length without adding units, semantics, or format beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 ("Spawn a CameraRig_Crane actor in the editor world") plus its key qualifiers (unrotated, given pitch/yaw/arm length). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling creation tools like create_camera_rig_asset, create_camera_rig_rail, and create_camera_rig_asset.

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?

Gives useful context — it is spawned in the editor world, always labelled CameraRigCrane_MCP, and should be addressed later via the returned internal_name, and the level is not saved. However it offers no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives among the many camera-rig siblings, only the implicit follow-up addressing guidance.

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