unreal_spatial_preview

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

Beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations, the description discloses important behavioral details: rotation/scale are preserved, bounds come from the editor, ground targets a world Z plane rather than terrain tracing, and session/world/revision must match native preview. This materially reduces the risk of incorrect invocation.

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 four tight sentences with the core operation front-loaded first. Every sentence adds meaningful information: what it does, key constraints, and follow-up workflow. There is no repetition of schema or annotation content.

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 rich input schema, output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers the essential non-obvious context: preserved transforms, editor bounds, ground behavior, and the pre-apply verification workflow. It is slightly less complete in explaining when alternatives should be chosen and what 'apply once' precisely refers to.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates only partly by naming the four recipe kinds and clarifying that ground uses a specified world Z plane rather than terrain tracing. The schema itself provides field names and enumerations, but semantics for fields like axis, anchor, mode, grid_cm, and origin_cm are not enriched by the description.

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: preview transformations to existing actors, enumerating align, distribute, snap_grid, and ground operations. It is clear and self-contained, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling preview tools like unreal_layout_preview or unreal_surface_preview.

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 for when to use it: when measuring existing actors and previewing spatial translations. It adds workflow guidance (review plan_id, apply once, run verification_checks), but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool.

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