spatial_add_asset_to_scene

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

With no annotations, the description properly carries the safety burden and explicitly discloses the most critical behavior: 'It is dry-run by default and requires allow_mutation=true before changing the editor scene.' This clearly tells an agent the tool will not mutate the scene unless explicitly enabled, while many other behavioral details like failure modes and data-layer enforcement are not covered.

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 compact and front-loads the core action before the safety behavior and a useful example. The sentence about being 'inspired by Ghost's spatial awareness gap' is metaphorical and adds limited practical value, making it slight fluff, but overall the structure is efficient.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and zero schema descriptions, the description is not complete enough. It leaves critical gaps around transform parameter formats, the meaning of fail_on_missing_data_layer, and what focus/selection flags do, so an agent may struggle to invoke it correctly beyond the provided example.

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%, so the description must compensate for the 12 parameters, but it only explains dry_run and allow_mutation in prose and incidentally shows asset_path, tags, and data_layer_names in the example. Parameters like location, rotation, scale, actor_label, select_actor, focus_viewport, and fail_on_missing_data_layer receive no explanation of formats, units, or behavior.

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 opening phrase 'Plan or place one asset into the current level' names a concrete action and resource, and the 'one asset' scope helps separate it from bulk placement tools like spatial_place_selected_assets. The dual 'Plan or place' and the implementation detail 'using Unreal Python' introduce minor ambiguity, but the core purpose is clear.

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 when to use this tool (single-asset placement, dry-run by default, mutation gated by allow_mutation=true), but it never explicitly names alternatives or exclusions such as using spatial_place_selected_assets for multiple assets or a planning tool for pre-composition work. Usage context is present but left to inference.

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