ue_pcg_spawn_volume

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral caveat about the volume being out of scope if the level is far from the origin, and explains the volume's necessity. However, it does not address mutation side effects (e.g., overwriting existing volumes), error behavior, or required permissions.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a brief explanatory line, and a bulleted argument list. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters, the description covers the essential purpose, usage context, and all parameter semantics. It lacks explicit return value information and alternative-tool guidance, but given the tool's simplicity, it is largely 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains all four parameters: graph_path, label, location (with a critical warning about world coordinates), and size (with default 200×200×200). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Piazza un PCGVolume nel livello con il grafo già collegato' (Places a PCGVolume in the level with the graph already connected). It also explains the volume's role as the domain in which the graph works, distinguishing this spawn tool from graph-creation or generation siblings.

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 practical usage context, warning about the world center and suggesting to read a reference actor with `ue_list_actors` first. It implies when to use the tool (when a graph needs a volume) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.

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