entity_create

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

The annotations already establish that this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds the useful and non-obvious fact that creation performs no camera/drop fixups, but it does not explain revision or epoch checking, failure behavior, or how request_id affects execution.

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 single compact sentence front-loads the operation and supported types, then adds an important behavioral caveat without filler. Its terse wording is dense but remains easy to scan.

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?

For a seven-parameter mutation with six required fields, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, this is not complete enough for reliably constructing every request. The concurrency-related identifiers, optional model reference, and entity-specific attribute semantics all require outside knowledge.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description only reinforces the schema's entity types, position, and five-attribute count. It provides no meaning for request_id, map_epoch, expected_revision, or model_ref, nor does it explain coordinate conventions or the ordering and interpretation of the five attributes.

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 gives a specific verb and resource scope: creating only light, playerstart, or mapmodel entities at explicit coordinates. This clearly separates creation from sibling list, update, and delete operations, while the no-fixups clause further narrows the placement workflow.

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?

Explicit coordinates and the absence of camera/drop fixups imply use for precise, unadjusted placement. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, prerequisite, or alternative workflow for cases where automatic placement assistance is desired.

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