create_world_partition_map

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

Annotations declare this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it creates an Inactive UWorld inside a /Game package, saves it as a .umap, and does not swap the editor world. The inline return fields (created, already_exists, saved) also signal that an existing map is detected rather than blindly overwritten, which is useful context not present in the 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 purpose and key behavioral caveat are front-loaded in two tight sentences, with the return shape appended. The inline return list is somewhat long but earns its place since no output schema exists to convey it.

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 well by enumerating the return fields and disclosing the headless/no-swap behavior. Permissions and error semantics are not addressed, but with annotations and full schema coverage the definition is otherwise complete enough to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the three parameters (name, package_path with /Game/Maps default, enable_streaming) are already fully documented in the schema. The description mentions the /Game package location and .umap output but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 a specific verb and resource ('Creates and saves a new World Partition-enabled UWorld map asset on disk') and immediately scopes it by clarifying that the editor world is NOT swapped, which distinguishes it from level-swapping siblings like new_level or load_level. An agent can identify the tool 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?

The description gives clear context for when this applies by stating the editor world is not swapped and that it mirrors UWorldFactory's headless creation path, which implicitly separates it from tools that open or modify the active level. It does not name an explicit alternative tool or state exclusions, so it falls short of the 5 level.

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