spatial_place_selected_assets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose that real placement is transactional and requires allow_mutation, and that empty asset_paths reads the selection. However, it does not describe side effects, reversibility, or what kind of actors/objects are created.

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-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a KB pointer, critical behavior notes, and a concrete example. It is efficient with no filler, though the example could have been integrated more tightly.

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?

Despite the output schema existing, the tool has 15 input parameters and no annotations, making this description insufficient for correct invocation. Key behaviors like dry-run default, data layer handling, placement layout options, and actor selection semantics are absent. The KB reference helps but does not compensate for the missing parameter and usage details.

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% across 15 parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies only asset_paths (fallback to current selection) and allow_mutation (required for real placement), and shows placement_layout in an example; the remaining 13 parameters are left unexplained.

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 states a specific verb ('Plan or place') and resource ('selected Content Browser assets as a batch'), making the tool's core function clear. It distinguishes itself from many sibling tools by focusing on selected assets in batch, though it does not name an alternative tool explicitly.

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 usage context: it works with current Content Browser selection when asset_paths is empty, and real placement requires allow_mutation. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives like spatial_add_asset_to_scene or when not to use it.

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