spatial_plan_room_bounds_designation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it discloses that the tool is read-only, does not mutate Unreal Editor state, and returns a designated contract rather than performing edits. It does not cover failure modes or edge behavior, but for a side-effect-free planner the key behavioral traits are clearly stated.

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 purpose and read-only behavior, and the example adds concrete invocation guidance. Minor jargon such as 'Ghost' and 'handoffs back into live room analysis' adds some ambiguity, but every line earns its place and the length is appropriate.

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?

The output contract is described and an output schema exists, so return values are somewhat covered. The input side is the weak point: nine parameters have no schema descriptions and the description only demonstrates two, so an agent cannot reliably construct complex inputs like room_origin/room_dimensions or decide the marker flags.

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, but it only illustrates room_id and zone_names via an example. The meaning and expected format of room_origin, room_dimensions, limit, and the include_* flags are not explained, leaving the agent to guess for 7 of 9 parameters.

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 and resource: 'Plan the editor tags/volumes that make room bounds authoritative.' It then enumerates the returned contract (RoomBounds volume, optional markers, room id tags) and explicitly distinguishes itself as a read-only planner, which differentiates it from mutation-oriented sibling tools.

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 gives clear context by calling itself a 'local/read-only planner' and stating 'It does not mutate Unreal Editor state,' signaling when it is appropriate to use. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or give exclusions, so the routing burden is partly left to inference.

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