spawn_audio_emitter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses persistence, the spatial distance-attenuation behavior, and the auto_play default, but says nothing about permissions, actor lifetime/cleanup, whether re-spawning is idempotent, or how the emitter interacts with existing world state.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then supporting intent, then a clean Args block. Slightly padded by the 'Perfect for...' sentence, but every part is useful and nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the parameters are well-covered. The main gap is behavioral: no annotation coverage on a world-mutating spawn tool, leaving lifetime/cleanup and safety semantics unstated.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains sound as a SoundBase/MetaSound asset path with a concrete example, location as [x, y, z], name as the actor label, and auto_play's default. Only the valid range/units for location and acceptable asset path constraints are left implicit.

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 a persistent AmbientSound actor at a world location') and clarifies the resulting behavior (spatial audio that scales with player distance). It is distinct enough from siblings like place_audio_volume and template_ambient, though it never explicitly names an alternative to distinguish itself from them.

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?

Usage is implied through examples ('Perfect for environmental sounds (campfire, waterfall, machinery)'), which gives an agent a sense of intent but no when-not conditions or comparison to sibling tools such as place_audio_volume or template_ambient.

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