nav_create_link_proxy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose several meaningful behaviors: endpoints_are_world centers the actor between endpoints, location only matters for local endpoints, and rebuild triggers a navigation rebuild. However, it does not mention potential side effects like duplicate actor creation on repeated calls or the cost of rebuilding navigation.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a compact and informative parameter list, a KB pointer, and an example. It is appropriately sized for a 9-parameter tool, though the example 'nav_create_link_proxy()' is less instructive than a realistic call with endpoints would be.

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?

For a complex 9-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers every parameter and adds useful context around local vs world endpoints, actor location, and navigation rebuild. Since an output schema exists, omitting return-value details is acceptable. Missing usage guidance and endpoint coordinate format keep it from being fully complete.

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 0%, but every one of the 9 parameters is individually explained in the Args section, including allowed values for direction and examples for area_class. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions; only the exact vector format of endpoints is left implicit.

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?

The first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Spawn a NavLinkProxy and configure its point link endpoints.' This clearly distinguishes it from navigation sibling tools like nav_add_modifier_volume or setup_navmesh.

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?

No explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The KB pointer is a reference, not usage guidance. The only hint is the action itself, which implies usage but never explains it.

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