cheat_spawn_squad

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two behavioral facts beyond the schema: the position must be walkable, and a write lease is required. It omits whether an invalid position fails or snaps to a nearby cell, whether the spawn is persistent, and whether members cost resources — meaningful gaps for a state-creating mutation.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the action and the hard precondition both front-loaded. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 6-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the definition leaves the return value and failure behavior unexplained — the agent cannot tell whether it gets back a squad id or nothing. The lease and walkability notes cover the most important risks, so it is adequate rather than absent.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description adds a constraint the schema cannot express: x/z must resolve to a walkable position. It says nothing extra about count, vehicle, or session_id, but those already have inline descriptions, so the baseline for partial coverage is met or slightly exceeded.

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 ("Spawn a new player squad") plus the scoping condition ("at a walkable position"), which cleanly separates it from mutators like move_squad or refill_squad_member_ammo. It stops short of naming any sibling or stating how it differs from them explicitly, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

"Requires the write lease" is a real prerequisite that tells the agent it must already hold control before calling, which is more than nothing. But there is no guidance on when to spawn versus heal/refill/move, and no mention of what to do if the lease is absent or how to obtain it here (the schema only points at acquire_control).

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