spawn_sphere_reflection_capture

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

Annotations already declare the mutation/idempotency profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false). The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: it optionally sets component fields, reads them back to verify, and marks the capture dirty for recapture. This exceeds what the annotations convey.

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 action, then the optional set/verify behavior in the same sentence. The explicit Returns block is useful given there is no output schema, though slightly list-heavy.

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 usefully enumerates the return shape (actor names, has_component, *_set flags, values, spawned), which compensates well. It is complete enough for correct invocation, only missing explicit sibling routing.

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 the schema already documents location, brightness, and influence_radius with units and defaults. The description adds only the 'if given' optionality and the read-back semantics, which map to the return fields rather than clarifying the inputs themselves.

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 (Spawns) and resource (SphereReflectionCapture actor) plus its target (the editor world). The 'Sphere' qualifier inherently distinguishes it from the sibling spawn_box_reflection_capture, so an agent can route correctly without opening either 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 description implies context ('into the editor world') but never states when to prefer this over spawn_box_reflection_capture, spawn_scene_capture_2d, or the post-spawn update_reflection_captures. Usage is left to inference from the name alone.

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