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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint=true), but the description adds valuable behavioral details beyond that: it also deletes the headshot, refuses certain actor types, and notes it is 'free'. These are non-obvious traits that help the agent anticipate outcomes.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by constraints. Every word earns its place, and it avoids redundancy with the annotations.

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 simple one-parameter destructive tool, the description is complete: it explains the scope (unused private actor), the side effect (headshot deletion), and the refusal conditions. No output schema exists, but the tool's behavior is sufficiently covered.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the burden for explaining actor_id. It implicitly defines it as the identifier of the actor to delete by saying 'Delete an unused private actor...', but does not explicitly label the parameter or elaborate on its constraints beyond what the schema already provides. This is adequate but not rich.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete') with a specific resource ('an unused private actor and headshot'). It also distinguishes the scope (private, unused) and mentions refusal conditions, which differentiates it from sibling tools like create_actor or my_actors.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: it targets unused private actors and explains it will refuse seeded actors or those referenced by active castings/auditions. This gives implicit guidance on when the tool is appropriate, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for other cases.

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