despawn_mass_entities

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: despawning runs from the FTSTicker path outside Mass processing, it reports the global Mass entity-count delta, and it degrades to a no-op with a was_empty flag when nothing was spawned.

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 action and scope, then the alternative relationship, then edge-case behavior and returns. Slightly dense with engine jargon but no sentence is wasted.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what is destroyed, the edge case, and enumerates the return fields, while annotations carry the safety profile. 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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema documents it at 100% coverage ('Editor label of the AMassSpawner actor'). The description adds no additional meaning about the label parameter, 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 (despawn) and resource (entities on an AMassSpawner), and explicitly frames itself as the inverse of spawn_mass_entities. The technical detail (DoDespawning via FTSTicker path) further pins it apart from sibling destroy_all_mass_entities/destroy_mass_entity.

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?

It names the inverse relationship to spawn_mass_entities and gives a no-op condition (was_empty when the spawner spawned nothing), which imply usage context. However, it never says when to prefer this over the sibling destroy_all_mass_entities or destroy_mass_entity, so guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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