set_actor_spatially_loaded

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

Description adds substantial context beyond annotations: explains the CanChangeIsSpatiallyLoadedFlag() guard, FScopedTransaction + Modify() package-dirty semantics (survives save_level), and the honest no-op result (applied=false, can_change=false) for always-loaded/non-partitioned actors. It also documents the full return shape. Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true / idempotentHint=true; the description complements rather than contradicts them. Not a 5 only because it doesn't discuss failure modes beyond the can_change guard or permissions.

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?

Dense but well-organized into purpose, guard, transaction semantics, and a Returns block. Front-loaded with the core action. Some UE-internal jargon (OFPA, FScopedTransaction) could be trimmed, but every sentence carries behavioral information.

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 2-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the guard precondition, transaction/dirtiness behavior, failure semantics, and the full return record. Pricing the sibling-routing gap, this is complete enough for an agent to call safely, though it omits when to use alternatives.

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, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format or syntax details about actor_name (label vs. path) or is_spatially_loaded beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 (toggles) and resource (an editor-world actor's World Partition spatial-loading flag), names the underlying UE API (AActor::SetIsSpatiallyLoaded), and distinguishes itself from siblings like spawn_box_volume (referenced for the guard) and get_world_partition_info. An agent can identify exactly what it mutates.

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?

Usage is implied via the can_change=false explanation and the referenced precondition, but the description never states when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g. remove_orphaned_ofpa_actors, load_world_partition_region) or when not to call it. An agent gets the 'what happens if it fails' condition but no routing guidance.

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