ue_create_foliage_spawner

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It explains the conceptual role and the default tile size, but it does not disclose whether the asset is overwritten, whether package paths must already exist, or what the tool returns. This is a partial behavioral disclosure but not a complete one.

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?

Two short sentences plus a clean Args list with examples. Every sentence adds meaning, no filler, and it is front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

Given the simple schema (4 flat parameters, no output schema), the description covers the asset being created, its relationship to the volume, and all parameter details. It lacks return value and save behavior, but for this simplicity it is nearly complete.

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 coverage is 0%, yet the description explains all four parameters with concrete examples ('/Game/MyGame/Foliage', 'PFS_Bosco'), clarifies foliage_types as paths to FoliageTypes to include, and gives tile_size with default value and unit (cm). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Crea un ProceduralFoliageSpawner con dentro i suoi FoliageType' (Creates a ProceduralFoliageSpawner with its FoliageTypes inside). It also distinguishes this tool from the sibling volume tool by explaining the spawner is the 'recipe' and the volume is where it is applied.

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 explicitly contrasts the spawner as the recipe and the volume created by ue_foliage_spawn_volume as the application area, telling the agent when to use this tool versus the volume. It provides example paths for package_path and name, but does not mention exclusions for other foliage tools like ue_create_foliage_type.

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