load_world_partition_region

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

The description explicitly claims 'Non-destructive: it loads (pins) actors, it never spawns/edits/saves,' while the annotations declare destructiveHint=true (with readOnlyHint=false). This is a direct contradiction between the prose and the structured safety metadata, exactly the case the rubric penalizes with a 1.

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, then layers scope, mechanism, error behavior, and safety. It is dense and includes implementation minutiae (UWorldPartitionEditorLoaderAdapter, ILoaderAdapter::Load()) that don't aid tool selection, but every sentence is on-topic and no obvious padding exists.

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-flagged tool with no output schema, it volunteers a full return shape, error conditions (non-WP map, uninitialized WP), and the residency side effect. It is nearly complete, but the incorrect 'non-destructive' framing leaves the agent with a distorted model of the operation's side effects.

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 min/max/label are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that min/max form an axis-aligned region box but adds no format, ordering, or validation 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 and resource: 'Pins the World Partition cells intersecting an axis-aligned region [min,max] into memory for inspection (editor world).' The verb (pins/loads), resource (World Partition cells in a region), and scope (editor world) are all unambiguous, so an agent can distinguish it from generic actor/level tools 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?

Gives clear context: it mirrors the editor's 'Load Region from Here' and exists so that 'get_actors_by_class / actor tools' can see now-loaded actors, plus notes it errors on non-WP or uninitialized maps. It stops short of explicitly naming a preferred alternative tool or stating when not to use it, so it's strong but not a full when/when-not/alternative statement.

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