objects_spawn

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

Annotations already declare this as a destructive, non-idempotent, open-world mutation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it discloses that the return may include concurrent spawns by others and explains the template-based spawn flow.

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?

Four well-structured sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no wasted words. Each sentence contributes useful information.

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 tool is complex (mutating, nested spec object, no output schema), but the description omits key details: what fields the spec object should contain when not using a template, and any failure behavior. It covers template usage and return concurrency but leaves gaps for a destructive operation.

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 low (25%), but the description adds some meaning for the template parameter ('spawn fields come from the template'). It does not explain the spec object structure, position format, or table_id beyond what is in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Spawn an object or a native linked library template.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming objects_patch and blueprint_apply and describing when each applies.

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?

Gives clear usage context for templates ('use objects_patch afterwards') and for repeated builds ('use blueprint_apply'). However, it does not state general prerequisites or when not to use the tool.

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