create_data_layer_instance

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

Adds real context beyond annotations: it names the underlying subsystem call, discloses the WP precondition, and states that a non-WP map yields a truthful error with no editor-world swap. The annotation set (mutation, not idempotent, not destructive) is consistent with the described behavior.

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?

Purpose leads the description, followed by the WP constraint and then the return shape. No filler sentences, though the inline return-field enumeration is a dense block; it earns its place given the absence of an 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?

Covers the single parameter, the hard precondition, the error behavior, and the return payload fields. Since no output schema exists, providing the return shape is valuable. Minor gaps (e.g., what parenting/placement the instance receives) remain but the definition is callable as-is.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'full /Game path to the UDataLayerAsset'. The description restates the asset type but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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 ('Instances') plus the resource ('a UDataLayerAsset') and its target ('the editor world's World Partition'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like create_data_layer_asset (which authors the asset) and remove_data_layer_instance (which reverses this).

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 gives a concrete precondition — the editor world must be a World Partition world — and describes the failure mode on a non-WP map. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative or an explicit 'do not use this when...', but the WP requirement is a strong, actionable usage gate.

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