create_trigger

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-destructive, non-idempotent write with openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by explaining that TriggerVolume spawning is deliberately rejected because it yields a success-shaped actor with no real collision, and by stating the returned fields. It doesn't mention persistence, undo, or level scope, which is a minor gap.

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 sentences, zero filler: capability first, exclusion and alternatives second, return shape last. Every sentence earns its place and the most important constraint is front-loaded.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by listing the return fields. Purpose, alternatives and shape constraints are complete for a 3-param spawn tool; only spawn-level/context (which level, what happens on save) is unstated, a minor omission given the annotations.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema's trigger_type description is notably richer than the tool description (it explains the UModel brush rationale). The description restates the shape restriction and the location concept but adds no syntax or format detail 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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource (creates a trigger actor) and immediately bounds the scope to TriggerBox/TriggerSphere, explicitly distinguishing itself from brush-based volume creation. An agent can identify the tool's job without opening the schema.

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?

Names the concrete alternatives (create_volume(volume_type="TriggerVolume"), spawn_box_volume) and states the condition that selects them (brush-based ATriggerVolume). The 'these two shapes only' exclusion is explicit rather than implied.

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