spawn_post_process_volume

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

Annotations declare write/non-destructive/non-idempotent, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the spawn is a single undoable transaction, nothing is persisted, and it is unbound by default. This goes beyond the annotation set, though it does not describe editor-vs-PIE requirements or failure modes.

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-loads the action and the key constraints efficiently in the opening sentence, then appends the return shape. There is mild redundancy: the first paragraph already names actor_name/unbound/enabled, then the Returns line repeats them in a fuller object literal.

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, so the description carries the return contract and does so explicitly, listing the full object fields along with the actor_internal_name and spawned flags. Combined with the spawn semantics and follow-up tools, an agent has everything needed to call and chain this tool.

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 (unbound, location) are fully documented in the schema, including defaults. The description only restates the unbound default, so with the schema doing the heavy lifting the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (spawn) plus resource (PostProcessVolume actor), the location, and the default binding behavior in the first clause. It clearly differentiates itself from sibling volume spawners and from the config-oriented set_post_process_setting/set_post_process_color_grading siblings by naming them for follow-up.

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?

Provides clear context: an undoable spawn that saves nothing, plus an explicit next-step routing to set_post_process_setting or set_post_process_color_grading. It stops short of stating when you would pick a different volume spawner (e.g. vs spawn_box_volume), so it is not a full when/when-not treatment.

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