ue_spawn_many

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that spawning is grouped into a single undo transaction, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention failure handling, permissions, limits on number of actors, or what happens to the spawned actors (e.g., naming, collision). The description is adequate but not thorough.

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 well-structured, starting with a clear purpose, followed by a rationale, then a concise parameter breakdown. Every sentence adds value; there is no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 single parameter and no output schema, the description covers input needs thoroughly. It explains the undo transaction and performance benefit. However, it does not describe the return value (e.g., success indication, spawned actor references) or maximum number of actors, leaving minor gaps for a complete understanding.

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?

The input schema only defines 'actors' as an array of objects with no structure, while the description provides detailed semantics: required 'class_ref', optional 'location', 'rotation', 'scale', 'label', plus an example. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and is essential for correct invocation.

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 spawns many actors in one call and one undo transaction, and explicitly contrasts with ue_spawn_actor which requires multiple HTTP round-trips. The verb 'spawna' and resource 'molti attori' are specific, and the sibling tool differentiation is clear.

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 advises using this tool when spawning 'qualche decina di elementi' (several tens of elements) due to cost savings over individual spawns. This implies a threshold for when to use this vs ue_spawn_actor, though it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., for single actors).

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