create_water_body_exclusion_volume

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not readOnly, not destructive, not idempotent), and the description goes beyond that by disclosing the composite multi-step behavior (spawn actor, build cube brush, set exclusion mode, bind labels) and the exact return shape inline. It stops short of describing failure modes, permissions, or persistence.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and the actor type, followed by a compact return-shape line. Nothing is wasted and the most important information (what actor is created) leads.

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 creation/mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape and covers the operation sequence, while annotations cover safety and the schema fully documents parameters. Only minor gaps remain (no prerequisites, no error/failure behavior), but an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents every parameter including defaults and the removal/add mode. The description restates the label-binding behavior and the exclusion mode but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verbs (spawn, build, set, bind) and the exact resource (AWaterBodyExclusionVolume), even parenthetically explaining it is a brush volume that excludes water bodies. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_ocean_water_body, create_lake_water_body, and create_water_zone.

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 clarifies the multi-step nature of the operation and notes that binding water bodies is optional, which implies usage. However, it never states when to use this tool versus the several sibling water-body creation tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied.

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