pcg_create_volume

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full transparency burden. It adds useful behavioral context by saying graph assignment is optional and calling generation a 'try,' which signals best-effort behavior. However, it does not disclose side effects, failure modes, reversibility, or what happens when generation is attempted without a graph.

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 main action, followed by a compact parameter list, a KB pointer, and a concrete example. Every line contributes useful information and there is no evident filler. It is slightly longer than the minimal case, but the added structure earns its place.

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 six-parameter spawn tool with no annotations, the description is mostly complete: all parameters are explained, a KB reference is supplied, and an example call demonstrates intended usage. It omits explicit routing among PCG-related siblings and some side-effect detail, but an output schema exists and the KB reference covers deeper context.

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%, and the Args block compensates by giving each parameter a role: editor label, optional /Game path, world location, rotation order, scale, and the generation trigger. This is more meaningful than the bare schema and covers all six parameters. It leaves some semantics implicit, such as null-value behavior and exact coordinate units.

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 description opens with a concrete action: 'Spawn a PCG volume and optionally assign a PCG graph.' This names the specific resource, the verb, and the optional graph-binding behavior, which is enough to separate it from graph-asset creation or volume refresh tools. The purpose is immediately clear and distinguishable from siblings.

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 'use this when' or 'instead of' guidance is provided. The intended scenario is implied by 'Spawn a PCG volume' and the optional graph assignment, but alternatives like pcg_check_support, pcg_create_graph_asset, or general spawn_actor are not mentioned or excluded. The agent must infer when this tool is the right choice.

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