create_volume

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: the operation is 'one undo step' and 'the level is not saved', plus the brush is a 'real cube brush'. It stops short of stating prerequisites like needing an open editor world, but it adds genuinely useful traits.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, and efficient overall. The only waste is mild redundancy between the prose 'Returns actor_name, actor_path...' and the following 'Returns: {...}' line, which repeat the same return fields.

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 compensates by listing the returned fields and disclosing the undo-grouping and non-persistence behavior. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has what it needs to call it correctly, though it omits error/failure conditions.

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 all four parameters (size, location, volume_name, volume_type) are already documented in the schema. The description restates the volume_name labeling and the cube brush 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?

States a specific verb (spawn) and resource (volume) and enumerates exactly which classes it creates (BlockingVolume, KillZVolume, etc.), distinguishing it from other volume creators. The explicit hand-off to spawn_box_volume for other cases makes the boundary with siblings unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative (spawn_box_volume) and the condition that selects it ('For other AVolume classes or box extents'), so an agent can route correctly without inspecting either schema. This is the when/when-not/alternative pattern at its clearest.

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