spatial_plan_worldbuilding_work_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does so by declaring the tool local/read-only and stating it will not run vision, mutate Unreal, or submit paid Tripo jobs. This directly addresses side-effect and cost concerns, though it does not describe return-value details beyond what the output schema likely covers.

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 dense but efficient: a one-line purpose, a KB pointer, a clear scope sentence, and a concrete example. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundancy with the schema.

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 description provides strong behavioral scope, a workflow outline, and a callable example, and the output schema covers return shape. However, the 20-parameter surface with no schema descriptions leaves many optional-but-important inputs unexplained, so completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 20 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only groups a few inputs—design brief, screenshot evidence, room analysis, project asset catalog—and gives one example with reference_image and design_brief. Behavior-affecting parameters such as minimum_asset_score, max_candidates_per_prop, and include_architectural_fill receive no guidance.

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, object, and domain: it plans an executable interior worldbuilding work order. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by describing inputs, the staged workflow it produces, and explicitly listing actions it does not perform (vision, Unreal mutation, paid Tripo jobs).

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 read-only planner framing implies use for producing a plan rather than executing mutations, and the negatives clarify scope. However, it never explicitly names sibling tools or conditions such as 'use spatial_apply_composition_plan when you need execution', so selection guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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