spawn_sky_light

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that the spawn is a single undoable transaction, that no existing-actor check occurs, that nothing is saved/persisted, that intensity is written to the USkyLightComponent, and that recapture triggers RecaptureSky. These are the exact behaviors an agent needs and none are inferable from the readOnly/destructive/idempotent hints.

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 core spawn semantics and the alternative routing, with no wasted filler. It is dense across several clauses, but each sentence carries distinct information (transaction, persistence, intensity, recapture, alternatives, return shape).

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 usefully enumerates the return fields (actor_name, intensity_set, intensity, recaptured, spawned). Combined with the persistence and undo disclosures, it is complete enough for an agent to call correctly and interpret the reply.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: intensity is a multiplier applied to the component only when supplied, recapture=true invokes RecaptureSky to refresh now, and location implies no rotation. That clarifies effect and side effect beyond the schema wording.

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 SkyLight actor) plus scope (editor world, at a location, no rotation, as one undoable transaction). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings set_sky_light_properties (tune existing) and spawn_sky_atmosphere (adds atmosphere), so an agent can route without opening another 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use: spawn here versus tune an existing light with set_sky_light_properties, and it notes it does not check for an existing sky light. The alternative for atmosphere (spawn_sky_atmosphere) is named directly.

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