ue_snap_to_ground

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: 'One fast transaction' indicates speed and atomicity, and 'bounding-box bottom rests on the ground' clarifies the exact outcome. However, it does not disclose failure modes (e.g., what if ray doesn't hit ground) or permissions needed. Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness, so the bar is lower.

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 two sentences: the first gives the primary action, the second lists options and adds a performance note. Every word is necessary; no redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded and easily parseable.

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 3 parameters and a simple action, the description covers the core behavior and optional features. It mentions a transaction hint and offsets. However, it does not address edge cases like missing ground or incompatible actors, and the output schema is not described but is available separately. Overall, it is sufficient for typical use.

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 fully explains all three parameters: 'by label' for actor_label, 'apply a vertical offset' for z_offset, and 'tilt it to match the surface slope' for align_to_normal. It adds meaningful semantics beyond titles and defaults, leaving no ambiguity about parameter purpose.

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 action: 'Drop an actor onto the surface directly beneath it so its bounding-box bottom rests on the ground.' It specifies the resource (actor by label) and the verb (snap/drop), and distinguishes from siblings like ue_ground_trace (which likely traces rays, not snaps) by focusing on repositioning with optional tilt and offset.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ue_ground_trace, ue_spatial_query). It does not mention conditions like actor must exist, must be movable, or what happens if no ground is found. The agent must infer usage from context.

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