spawn_actor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that spawning occurs in the current level, that names must be unique, and that location is world-space while rotation is in degrees. It does not describe failure modes or return values, but the output schema partially covers that and the mutation intent is explicit.

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 well-organized: a one-line purpose, an args block, a KB pointer, and an example. It is front-loaded and contains no wasted narrative, though the example is somewhat artificial and the arg list could be tightened.

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 4-parameter spawn tool with an output schema, the description explains all inputs and points to a KB resource for deeper world-building context. It is sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool, though duplicate-name failure behavior and exact return semantics are not addressed.

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 description fully compensates by defining every parameter: unique name, actor type with examples, [X, Y, Z] world location, and [Pitch, Yaw, Roll] rotation in degrees. The example call further clarifies invocation syntax.

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?

States a specific verb ('Spawn'), resource ('actor'), and scope ('in the current level'). The actor type list (StaticMeshActor, PointLight, Camera) and the sibling spawn_blueprint_actor make its purpose as a general native-actor spawner clearly distinguishable.

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 through 'current level' and the actor type examples, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives like spawn_blueprint_actor. There is no exclusion or conditional guidance, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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