spawn_entity

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

Given sparse annotations (only title), the description carries full burden. It notes the tool is 'GUARDED', changes the game, and is audited, indicating destructive behavior. It also mentions the return value. No contradictions with annotations. Some side effects or irreversibility details are absent but overall adequate.

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 very concise—two short sentences with no redundant or irrelevant content. It front-loads the guarded nature and primary action, making it easy to parse.

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?

The description covers the main purpose, return value, and a critical constraint. However, given the complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), it lacks details about parameter dependencies (e.g., model required for certain classes) and does not fully place the tool in the broader workflow among siblings.

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 100%, so all parameters are already documented. The description adds no additional semantic value for parameters beyond emphasizing the confirm constraint. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (creates and spawns an entity), the return value (EntIndex), and its use by other world tools. It is specific about the resource and output, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling mutation tools like world_edit.

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 includes the key requirement 'confirm:true' and hints that the returned EntIndex is used by other tools. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_lua or set_player_state, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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