spawn_static_mesh

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

With no annotations, the description partially compensates by explaining the expected format for 'mesh_asset' with examples. However, it does not disclose any side effects (e.g., actor creation in the current level), failure modes, or requirements beyond the parameter format.

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 with two sentences, the first stating purpose and the second explaining the critical parameter. However, it could be slightly more structured by listing all parameters briefly.

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 tool has 5 parameters and an output schema (unseen), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain optional parameters, return value, or the fact that the actor is spawned into the current level. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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?

Out of 5 parameters, only 'mesh_asset' is described (with content path examples). The parameters location, rotation, scale, and label are completely undocumented both in the schema and description. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate adequately.

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 verb 'Spawn' and the specific resource 'StaticMeshActor', and distinguishes it from the generic sibling 'spawn_actor' by specifying 'using a static mesh asset'. This makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 like 'spawn_actor' or when not to use it. It lacks any conditional context or exclusionary advice.

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