spawn_actor

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

With no annotations, the description fails to disclose whether the spawned actor becomes selected, what happens on invalid actor_class, or whether the level must be mutable; the single sentence 'Spawn a new actor in the current level' is the extent of behavioral information.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording, but it is somewhat under-specified for the tool's complexity; still, it earns its place as a clear purpose statement.

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 including nested objects and no output schema, the description lacks context about coordinate systems, defaults, and return behavior; it also fails to differentiate from sibling spawn tools, making it incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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?

The description does not describe any parameters; the schema provides descriptions only for actor_class and scale, leaving label, location, and rotation with only type/default information. The description adds no semantic value.

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 uses the specific verb 'spawn' with resource 'actor' and scope 'current level', clearly conveying a creation operation distinct from siblings like list_actors or set_actor_transform.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives such as spawn_blueprint_actor or spawn_niagara_*; it does not state prerequisites like having a level loaded.

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