register_spawn_point

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

With annotations already declaring the mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), the description adds real substance: it says exactly what state changes occur (PlayerStartTag set, actor promoted to APlayerStart) and enumerates the return payload. It does not address idempotency despite idempotentHint=false, which is a minor gap.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it does, why you'd use it, and what it returns. Purpose is front-loaded and no sentence is filler; the return shape is genuinely informative given there is no output schema.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, it covers purpose, usage, mutation effect, and return fields. It omits operational concerns such as whether the property change must be saved or how repeated registration behaves, which would round out the picture.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including tag examples like 'Red'/'Blue'/'Respawn'. The description only echoes the effect of the parameters rather than adding syntax or edge-case semantics, 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+resource ('Mark an existing actor as a registered spawn point') and explains the mechanism (sets PlayerStartTag, ensures APlayerStart). It also differentiates from the sibling place_player_start by framing itself as an alternative to 'placing APlayerStarts'.

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 a clear use case ('tagging generic actors as respawn anchors') and contrast with the alternative approach of placing APlayerStarts. It stops short of naming the sibling tool place_player_start or stating when not to use this, so it is context-rich but not fully routing.

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