Move ordinary actors by integer grid-cell offsets in a map session and inspect the actual positions returned, so you can verify placement changes.
Move ordinary actors by integer grid cells; inspect actual returned positions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| delta | Yes | ||
| 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?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior — that returned positions may differ from the requested delta and should be inspected — which is valuable given there is no output schema. It still omits concurrency semantics (expected_revision conflicts), whether a move is all-or-nothing across actor_ids, and what happens on collision.
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?
A single tight sentence with the operation front-loaded and no filler. The second clause is slightly cryptic ('inspect actual returned positions') but it earns its place by flagging a non-obvious behavior.
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, non-idempotent, five-required-parameter mutation with no output schema and no schema documentation, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell from it how to handle a revision mismatch, partial application, or invalid coordinate targets.
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%, so the description must carry the load for five required parameters. It explains only that movement is in integer grid cells (clarifying delta's semantics) and implies actor_ids is a list; it says nothing about expected_revision acting as an optimistic-concurrency token, nor the roles of browser_session_id and map_session_id.
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 ('Move ordinary actors') plus the unit of movement ('integer grid cells'), which distinguishes it from placement (place_actor) and selection (select_actors). The qualifier 'ordinary' hints at an actor-type restriction but never names the alternative or what non-ordinary actors would use.
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 explicit when-to-use versus place_actor/select_actors/undo, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a prior select or a fresh revision. The only implicit guidance is the word 'ordinary', which suggests some actors are excluded but leaves the agent to guess.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.