spawn_level_streaming_volume

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 're-binding the same volume is a no-op' plus a non-obvious caveat that the runtime trigger is PIE-only and inert headless. It also documents the internal construction sequence (default brush, flag application, array append), adding real behavioral value beyond the annotations.

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 in the first sentence, followed by behavior and a return shape. Efficient overall, though the parenthetical implementation detail (CubeBuilder via UActorFactory::CreateBrushForVolumeActor) is more engine trivia than agent guidance.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description enumerates the full return object, and between the description and 100%-covered schema an agent has the required param, all optional params, defaults, idempotency, and the headless limitation needed to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (usage, extent, disabled, location, actor_label, editor_pre_vis_only, streaming_level_name) is already documented in the schema. The description confirms defaults (default box brush) and the flag application but adds little syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, 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 precise verb+resource: spawns an ALevelStreamingVolume with a box brush and binds it to an existing streaming sub-level. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like spawn_box_volume, spawn_nav_modifier_volume, and spawn_navmesh_bounds_volume, which spawn volumes but not level-streaming volumes.

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?

Clear context: it must bind to an existing streaming sub-level (the required param), and it explicitly notes the load/unload trigger is runtime/PIE-only and not exercised headless, which tells the agent when the result will and won't be observable. It does not, however, name an explicit alternative or state when not to use it versus related streaming tools.

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