spawn_blueprint_actor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the spawn is into the editor level, but does not disclose side effects, undoability, required connection state, or what happens on failure. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, followed by usage context and a well-structured Args block. The demo/sound-design sentence is slightly promotional but illustrative, and every other sentence earns its place given the need to document params.

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 not be explained. However, without annotations, the description leaves behavioral and prerequisite details unaddressed (editor connection, persistence, safeguards), making it only partially complete for a mutation tool.

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. It documents all four parameters with types, formats ([x,y,z], [pitch,yaw,roll] in degrees), defaults (origin, zero), an example blueprint path, and the optional label, adding substantial meaning beyond the bare 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 instance of a Blueprint actor into the editor level. It distinguishes by resource type (Blueprint actor) from general spawn/place siblings like spawn_audio_emitter, but does not explicitly name or contrast with 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?

Provides clear context for when to use it: placing a character/object in the scene for audio wiring, demos, and iterative sound design. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when not to use it.

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