unreal_spawn_actors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does well by warning about the destructive 'clearTag' behavior, stating idempotent re-run behavior, and explaining the headless physics limitation. The only imprecision is that 'and save' is not qualified against the schema's dryRun default of true, which could slightly mislead an agent expecting persistence by default.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds operational value. The 'NOTE:' gives a critical environment constraint without burying it, and no filler or redundant phrasing is present.

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 mutating tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the required inputs, source formats, deletion side effect, idempotence, and the critical Z-coordinate limitation. The dryRun default true is visible in the schema, so the miss is minor, but a sentence tying 'save' to dryRun=false would make invocation expectations fully unambiguous.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate. It usefully explains supported source types, required label/location, optional rotation/scale/tags, and the clearTag parameter's deletion semantics. It leaves dryRun, timeoutSeconds, and allowWithEditorOpen to the schema, but the core actor-entry parameters are made meaningful.

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 opening sentence 'Batch-spawn actors into a map and save' names a precise operation on a specific resource, and clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling tools, none of which are about spawning actors. It further specifies accepted source types ('/Game' asset or '/Script/Module.Class'), so an agent can recognize both the action and the domain immediately.

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 operational context: it is for batch-spawning actors into a map, with explicit note that headless commandlets have no physics scene and therefore require explicit Z. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the tool's purpose is distinct enough that the usage context is reasonably clear.

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