spawn_field_system_actor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, giving the safety profile. The description adds real context beyond that by naming the world (editor), the internal mechanism (UFieldSystemComponent::SetFieldSystem), and the full return shape. It does not, however, disclose failure behavior, whether re-spawning is allowed, or what happens if the path is invalid, so it is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two tightly written sentences front-load the operation and mechanism, followed by a compact return summary. No filler text; the only minor redundancy is restating the spawn/location in the second sentence.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile and the description supplying the return shape in lieu of an output schema, an agent has what it needs to call the tool. The only gap is the missing prerequisite that a UFieldSystem asset must already exist, which prevents a 5.

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 location, actor_label, and field_system_path are already documented in the schema. The description loosely references all three (location, label, assigned asset) but adds no syntax, defaults, or format detail beyond the structured fields, so the baseline of 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 (spawn an AFieldSystemActor) plus the key side effect (assign a UFieldSystem, set the label), which is distinguishable from asset-creation siblings like create_field_system_asset. However, it never names an explicit alternative spawn tool (e.g. generic spawn_actor) to sharpen the boundary, so it stops short of the 5-level sibling differentiation.

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 says what happens but never states when to choose this over create_field_system_asset/spawn_actor or what prerequisites exist (a UFieldSystem asset must already exist). No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided; the agent must infer context purely from the name.

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