spawn_mass_entities

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, non-idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description still adds useful behavior beyond them: spawning happens outside Mass processing, and the tool reports a global Mass entity-count delta rather than a bounded local action, which is meaningful for understanding side effects.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and mechanism, followed by the return shape. Dense but every clause carries information; no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly takes on the burden of describing the return payload (actor_label, count delta, spawned, note). Combined with annotations that carry the safety profile, this is close to complete; only explicit guidance on when to prefer it over sibling spawn/despawn tools is missing.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, including the note that 'count' is informational only and does not bound the spawn. The description does not meaningfully extend parameter meaning beyond the schema, 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?

Names a specific verb and resource (trigger entity spawning on an AMassSpawner) and adds the exact mechanism (DoSpawning from the FTSTicker path, outside Mass processing). This lets an agent distinguish it from sibling operations like set_mass_spawner_count or create_mass_spawner_actor 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?

The parenthetical explains the execution path, which implies context, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the other Mass spawning tools (set_mass_spawner_count, despawn_mass_entities, destroy_all_mass_entities). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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