create_ocean_water_body

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

Annotations already declare mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), but the description adds substantive context: it states the actor is spawned, optionally linked to a WaterZone, that wave height is re-read, and that no warning fires on an ocean. It also provides the full return shape, which matters because no output schema exists. It is silent on permissions and on the landscape-carving effect of affects_landscape, but overall it carries meaningful behavioral information beyond annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core action and avoids filler. The return-shape block is long but justified because there is no output schema. The parenthetical about wave correctness is slightly awkward but still informative.

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 five-parameter spawn tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential creation behavior, optional zone linking, and the full return shape. Remaining details such as preconditions for water_zone_label and the exact effect of affects_landscape are delegated to the schema, which is acceptable. A little more guidance on when to use this versus other water-body creators would make it fully complete.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters in detail. The description adds only a high-level 'optionally link to a WaterZone' note, which does not extend parameter meaning 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?

The description names a specific action (Spawn) and resource (Ocean AWaterBody actor), and the 'Ocean' qualifier separates it from sibling lake/river water-body creators. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative or state its scope relative to sibling tools, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It only notes that ocean waves are correct by default so no warning is emitted, and never explains when to choose this tool over create_lake_water_body, create_river_water_body, or create_water_zone.

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