spawn_sky_atmosphere

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

Annotations already declare the non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context: single undoable transaction, no duplicate-existence check, and 'nothing is saved' (dirty package state). These are behavioral facts an agent could not infer from 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 and dense; nearly every clause earns its place. Minor waste: the return fields are enumerated inline and then repeated in the 'Returns:' object literal, a small redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description must document the return payload, and it does so explicitly (actor_name, actor_internal_name, actor_class, has_component, spawned). Combined with the transaction and persistence notes, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result.

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% for the single location parameter, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's only added semantic is the parenthetical '(no rotation)', confirming only translation is applied — marginal value beyond the schema, so baseline 3.

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 a new SkyAtmosphere actor in the editor world'), plus the exact placement semantics (at location, no rotation). An agent can tell it apart from spawn_sky_light or spawn_volumetric_cloud without any schema inspection.

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?

Points the agent forward to the companion tool ('Tune it with set_sky_atmosphere_properties') and clarifies the precondition it does NOT apply ('without checking for an existing one'). It does not, however, say when a caller would prefer this over placing a SkyAtmosphere by other means, so it stops short of explicit when/when-not.

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