spawn_blueprint_actor

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

With no annotations provided, the description alone carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the action already implied by the tool name and offers no insight into side effects, persistence of changes, error handling, permissions, or return values. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the full impact of invoking the tool.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient, but its extreme brevity leaves out important details. Still, as a one-liner, it is well structured and easy to parse.

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's reliance on parameters (including nested default objects) and the absence of an output schema, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain how spawning behaves when the blueprint path is invalid, how location and rotation defaults work, or what happens after spawning. The description is not complete enough for reliable invocation in non-trivial scenarios.

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 makes no mention of any of the four input parameters. Although the schema provides descriptions for 'label' and 'blueprint_path', the nested 'location' and 'rotation' objects lack explanations, and the description does nothing to clarify their meaning or defaults. With only 50% schema description coverage, the description fails to add semantics for the undocumented parameters.

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 specifies a concrete action ('spawn') and a specific resource ('an instance of a Blueprint class') with a location context ('in the level'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'spawn_actor' by explicitly limiting to Blueprint classes, making it unambiguous which tool to use for this purpose.

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 comparison to alternatives, no preconditions, and no advice on when to choose this tool over 'spawn_actor' or other actor-related tools. It simply states what the tool does without explaining the situations in which it is the best choice.

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