Deletes ordinary actors from a map session using actor IDs and an expected revision; linked partners may also be removed by existing editor rules.
Delete ordinary actors. Linked partners may also be deleted by existing editor rules.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| actor_ids | Yes | ||
| map_session_id | Yes | ||
| expected_revision | Yes | ||
| browser_session_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: that linked partners may be deleted as a side effect via editor rules. It says nothing, however, about batch size limits, partial failure, or what happens when the expected revision mismatches.
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 with no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded. The second sentence is dense but earns its place by disclosing the cascade side effect.
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 destructive batch mutation with four required, wholly undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description leaves out too much: revision-conflict behavior, atomicity, and the practical size limit. Only the cascade-to-partners warning is supplied.
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 description coverage is 0% across four required parameters, so the description carries the full burden and covers none of them. The critical expected_revision optimistic-concurrency parameter and the 256-item cap on actor_ids go entirely unexplained.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Delete ordinary actors'), which clearly separates it from siblings like place_actor, move_actors, and list_actors. The phrase 'ordinary actors' versus 'linked partners' is not defined anywhere, so the scope boundary is only partially clear.
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?
There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no mention of undo/redo as a recovery path even though both are sibling tools. The agent must infer all usage context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.